children may do lawn care as an assigned household task or to earn spending money. ...... MAC program drew from principles in achievement goal theory to ...
C Caffeine Intoxication
Caffeine Use
ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
Caffeine intoxication results from the excessive ingestion of substances containing caffeine, such as coffee, tea, coca, soft drinks, and a variety of foods. The content of caffeine in drinks and foods varies considerably; for example, the content of caffeine in energy drinks varies broadly based on brand, which can range from 2.5 to 171 mg per ounce (see Reissig et al. 2008). Depending on body weight, an intake of more than 250–300 mg of caffeine can produce intoxication symptoms, such as restlessness, insomnia, excitement, muscle twitching, rambling speech, ringing in the ears, psychomotor agitation, and, at extremes, convulsion, respiratory failure, and death. Caffeine use has been reported to be increasing, possibly as a result of energy drink marketing targeted toward adolescents (Temple 2009). Excessive intake of caffeine can result in caffeine dependence, and the inability to meet that dependence can result in caffeine withdrawal and link to negative outcomes (see Whalen et al. 2008).
The most widely used psychoactive substance, caffeine, is easily obtained, socially acceptable, and legal for adolescents to purchase and consume. Indeed, adolescents now regularly consume caffeinated drinks. On average, 12–17-year-olds daily consume slightly less than the caffeine contained in one cup of coffee (Frary et al. 2005). Although caffeine is used widely, our understanding of its effects tends to have focused on animals and adults. Still, research that has examined the consumption and effects of caffeine on adolescents does provide with important insights. Although research may remain tentative, our understanding of adolescent development suggests that caffeine may have benefits when moderately consumed by adolescents but that adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to its negative effects. Although a psychoactive substance, caffeine is assumed safe and marketed in ways that avoid its being regulated as a drug. Caffeine is produced by a variety of beans, leaves, and fruit. Typically, caffeine is produced naturally by the beans and leaves used to manufacture coffee, black tea, and chocolate (Kovacs and Mela 2006). Manufacturers routinely add caffeine to a wide array of products available to adolescents, such as sodas, energy drinks, and some pain relievers (Frary et al. 2005). These products vary widely in their use of caffeine. The moderate use of these caffeinated products is generally recognized as safe, although this classification is based primarily on studies conducted with adults. Although deemed safe, caffeine still has been linked to several health hazards, including depression, caffeine intoxication, and death (Broderick and Benjamin 2004; Kerrigan and Lindsey 2005). The most
Cross-References ▶ Caffeine Use
References Reissig, C. J., Strain, E. C., & Griffiths, R. R. (2008). Caffeinated energy drinks - a growing problem. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 99, 1–10. Temple, J. L. (2009). Caffeine use in children: What we know, what we have left to learn, and why we should worry. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 793–806. Whalen, D. J., Silk, J. S., Semel, M., Forbes, E. E., Ryan, N. D., Axelson, D. A., et al. (2008). Caffeine consumption, sleep and affect in the natural environments of depressed youth and healthy controls. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 33, 358–367.
Roger J.R. Levesque (ed.), Encyclopedia of Adolescence, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2, # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
366
C
Caffeine Use
common negative effects of high caffeine doses are feelings of anxiety, nausea, jitteriness, and nervousness (Garrett and Griffiths 1997); and as it will be seen below, the energy boosts that youth receive from caffeine may relate to problem behavior. Despite potential risks, some caffeinated beverages are marketed directly to adolescents in an expanding number of venues (video games, Internet, cell phones, product placements) (Harris et al. 2008). These campaigns are deemed effective given adolescents’ increasing intake of caffeine, and given the development and aggressive marketing of novel and highly caffeinated energy drinks (Miller 2008a). Soda still remains adolescents’ most preferred way to obtain caffeine, but coffee-type drinks as well as energy drinks are increasing in popularity. Their popularity is of significance given that they contain significantly more caffeine per serving than what typically has been provided by sodas (Frary et al. 2005; Harnack et al. 1999). The increasing popularity of caffeinated drinks, including sodas, raises many concerns among health professionals and medical associations. Caffeine may be safe, but it could have effects on children and adolescents that have not been identified among adults. For example, research that has investigated the nature of caffeine use has shown that adolescents can be deemed caffeine dependent (Bernstein et al. 2002). One may not know what doses can produce negative effects, but it appears reasonable to assume that they do not need as high doses as adults, especially if they have a significantly smaller body size, to reach levels of dependence and even addiction. Adolescents may be more susceptible to caffeine intoxication, which, as mentioned above, results in a host of physiological and psychological effects and can, in some cases, lead to death. Even if adolescents would not show signs of dependence, it is important to consider that adolescence necessarily involves rapid growth as well as incredibly sophisticated and sensitive brain development. While researchers have yet to detail the effects of caffeine consumption on adolescent brain development, the possibility exists that caffeine can alter development during this time period. For example, to maximize growth and development, adolescents need proper sleep and nutrition. Caffeine disrupts sleep patterns; moderate-to-high caffeine consumers have more disturbed and more interrupted sleep than do low or no
caffeine consumers (Orbeta et al. 2006; Pollak and Bright 2003). In addition, caffeine may be used to counteract the effects of poor sleep on daytime wakefulness (Pollak and Bright 2003). This use of caffeine to counter disrupted sleep and fatigue can serve to perpetuate poor sleep patterns and heighten caffeine consumption. The currently most popular way to obtain caffeine, soda, also puts adolescents at risk for negative outcomes. The consumption of soda associates with poor diet and excess weight (Ludwig et al. 2001). For example, children aged 2–18 who consume approximately nine ounces of soda per day drink less milk and fruit juice and ingest 200 more calories per day when compared to infrequent soda drinkers (Harnack et al. 1999). Importantly, the evidence does not provide a very clear-cut story. Some evidence, from adult samples, suggests that the thermogenic effects of caffeine can increase energy expenditure and reduce weight gain over time (Lopez-Garcia et al. 2006). Still, caffeine use, particularly in the form of sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages that link with weight problems, may set adolescents up for considerable problems given that adolescence may be a critical period for the establishment of eating patterns and taste preferences. In addition to the sometimes obvious links to poor eating and sleeping habits, caffeine also links to efforts to perform in ways that may appear appropriate but, as it will be seen below, actually problematic. For example, adolescents now routinely use caffeine to enhance academic and athletic performance. Caffeine is thought to enhance athletic performance by improving muscle contraction efficiency and decreasing perceived effort and fatigue (Sinclair and Geiger 2000). A large study of school children reported that 27% of the total sample used caffeine to enhance athletic performance, and the percentages increased with age (Forman et al. 1995). Caffeine appears to improve sports performance, including perceived exertion (Hudson et al. 2008) and endurance (Hogervorst et al. 2008). Similarly, adolescents use caffeine to improve cognitive performance (Heatherley et al. 2006); it also has been shown to improve manual dexterity and reduced variability in reaction time among boys (Bernstein et al. 1994). The apparent effectiveness of caffeine contributes to its increasing use. The increasing use of caffeine becomes problematic in light of research indicating that caffeine can prime the brain to increase responding to subsequent drug
Caffeine Use
exposure, thereby potentiating the reinforcing effects of drugs, and can link to problem behavior. Adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to these effects, as their brains are still undergoing significant development, especially in areas involving executive function, impulsivity, and planning. In addition, caffeine use associates with other potentially harmful habits and behaviors. Most notably, adolescents who consume high amounts of caffeine, defined as consuming four or more caffeinated beverages per day, also are more likely to use cigarettes, engage in aggressive behavior, and evince attention and conduct problems as well as increased somatic complaints (Martin et al. 2008). These negative associations are becoming more commonly identified by research examining the consumption of energy drinks. Energy drink consumption links to risk-taking behavior among college students (Miller 2008a) and, in addition to the adverse effects from energy drinks themselves, energy drinks often are combined with alcohol as a way to increase the positive symptoms of alcohol while counteracting the depressive symptoms of alcohol intoxication (Ferreira et al. 2006; O-Brien et al. 2008; Oteri et al. 2007). These combinations can lead to increased alcohol intake and, consequently, increased alcohol-related adverse events (Oteri et al. 2007). Give these possibilities, it is not surprising to find that excessive consumption of energy drinks associates with engaging in several high-risk behaviors, including smoking, drinking, illicit drug use, risky sexual behavior, and fighting (Miller 2008a, b). The studies examining the consumption of caffeine, especially those involving energy drink consumption, may show potential adverse effects, particularly among adolescents. But, the studies also support the proposition that individuals with certain personality dispositions seek caffeine; e.g., individuals with sensation seeking tendencies may use caffeine to increase arousal. Given that most existing studies are cross-sectional, one does not know what causes what. Still, it would be reasonable to suggest that early use of caffeine may predispose some individuals to seek out other methods to increase arousal as they get older, such as risk-taking behavior, drug use, or smoking. In the alternative, individuals with high levels of sensation seeking, impulsivity, and conduct disorder use caffeine as a way to “self-medicate.” Still, there is no doubt that one of the primary effects of caffeine is to increase arousal (Barry et al. 2005) and that caffeine has effects
C
on mood, attention, and physiology; even at moderate doses, caffeine produces enhanced feelings of wellbeing, improve concentration, and increase arousal and energy (Garrett and Griffiths 1997). Moderate doses of caffeine can enhance adolescents’ cognitive performance and sense of well-being. What cannot be determined from current studies is whether people self-administer caffeine for the positive, mood-elevating effects, or to remove the negative effects, such as headache and fatigue. Researchers do suggest that the primary motivation for caffeine self-administration, in habitual caffeine consumers, is the avoidance of withdrawal symptoms (Schuh and Griffiths 1997). This may not be true for adolescents. Adolescents probably consume smaller amounts of caffeine on a less frequent basis than adults; as result, they may be more likely to experience the positive effects of caffeine than adults in whom caffeine use may, in fact, be driven by desire to reverse withdrawal. It is the positive effects of caffeine use during this time period that may set individuals on a path toward greater use in the future as they need to balance caffeine’s withdrawal and well-being effects. This proposition gains support from research indicating that most habitual caffeine consumers actually titrate their caffeine intake so as to minimize negative effects and maximize the positive ones (Smith 2002), with some developing tolerance to caffeine’s negative effects but not to its positive effects, which may account for increased and reinforced caffeine use (Nehlig 1999). Although it is difficult to find direct links without appropriate data, some theories suggest cause for concern for the manner caffeine use can set adolescents up for negative outcomes through cross-sensitization. Sensitization is the process by which the same dose of drug has stronger effects after repeated administration. Cross-sensitization is the process by which taking one drug enhances the response to that drug as well as other drugs acting at the same neurobiological site. This is one mechanism by which the taking of one drug can act as a “gateway” to administration of another drug. For example, animal studies have long revealed that repeated administration of amphetamine sensitizes the reward substrate to the effects of cocaine (Horger et al. 1992). Cross-sensitization is a concern because habitual use of licit drugs, such as caffeine or nicotine, may lead to cross-sensitization to illicit drugs and potentiate substance abuse. Although research in this
367
C
368
C
Caffeine Use
area clearly remains tentative, it is true that caffeine and nicotine use have a high rate of co-occurrence (Swanson et al. 1994). Although most of these studies have involved adults, one questionnaire-based study completed by adolescents found that, similar to adults, high caffeine consumption, defined as four or more caffeinated beverages per day, was associated with daily cigarette use (Martin et al. 2008). These data suggest that habitual caffeine consumption could lead to cross-sensitization for nicotine and, therefore, potentiate nicotine’s reinforcing effects. Studies have not yet examined closely the links between adolescents’ caffeine usage and other drug use in adulthood. But, it may well be that exposure to caffeine may prime the brain toward more sensitivity to other substances; and higher exposure to caffeine may contribute to behaviors that place adolescents at risk for seeking other drugs. Adolescents increasingly have access to caffeine, which now comes in more varied products that are more potent and marketed directly to them. This trend contributes to concern about the potential negative effects of caffeine on adolescents, especially in terms of their physiological and psychological development. Regrettably, little research has examined these effects. It does seem fair to conclude that caffeine can have negative effects, especially as it links to sodas, sweetened foods, and energy drinks that are known to link to negative health habits. The increasing attraction of caffeinated beverages at the very least suggests that their consumption has a reinforcing value, and that responses to caffeine may include cross-sensitization. Current research, however, cannot verify these claims. Research has yet to tackle the long-term effects of the nature and effects of adolescents’ caffeine use.
Cross-References ▶ Caffeine Intoxication
References Barry, R. J., Rushby, J. A., Wallace, M. J., Clarke, A. R., Johnstone, S. J., & Zlojutro, I. (2005). Caffeine effects on resting-state arousal. Clinical Neurophysiology, 116, 2693–2700. Bernstein, G. A., Carroll, M. E., Crosby, R. D., Perwien, A. R., Go, F. S., & Benowitz, N. L. (1994). Caffeine effects on learning, performance, and anxiety in normal school-age children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 407–415.
Bernstein, G. A., Carroll, M. E., Thuras, P. D., Cosgrove, K. P., & Roth, M. E. (2002). Caffeine dependence in teenagers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 66, 1–6. Broderick, P., & Benjamin, A. B. (2004). Caffeine and psychiatric symptoms: A review. The Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association, 97, 538–542. Ferreira, S. E., de Mello, M. T., Pompeia, S., & de Souza-Formigoni, M. L. (2006). Effects of energy drink ingestion on alcohol intoxication. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 30, 598–605. Forman, E. S., Dekker, A. H., Javors, J. R., & Davison, D. T. (1995). High-risk behaviors in teenage male athletes. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 5, 36–42. Frary, C. D., Johnson, R. K., & Wang, M. Q. (2005). Food sources and intakes of caffeine in the diets of persons in the United States. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105, 110–113. Garrett, B. E., & Griffiths, R. R. (1997). The role of dopamine in the behavioral effects of caffeine in animals and humans. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 57, 533–541. Harnack, L., Stang, J., & Story, M. (1999). Soft drink consumption among US children and adolescents: Nutritional consequences. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99, 436–441. Harris, J. L., Pomeranz, J. L., Lobstein, T., & Bronell, K. D. (2008). A crisis in the marketplace: How food marketing contributes to childhood obesity and what can be done. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 211–225. Heatherley, S. V., Hancock, K. M., & Rogers, P. J. (2006). Psychostimulant and other effects of caffeine in 9–11year-old children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 135–142. Hogervorst, E., Bandelow, S., Schmitt, J., Jentjens, R., Oliveira, M., Allgrove, J., et al. (2008). Caffeine improves physical and cognitive performance during exhaustive exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40, 1841–1851. Horger, B. A., Giles, M. K., & Schenk, S. (1992). Pre exposure to amphetamine and nicotine predisposes rats to self-administer a low dose of cocaine. Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 107, 271–276. Hudson, G. M., Green, J. M., Bishop, P. A., & Richardson, M. T. (2008). Effects of caffeine and aspirin on light resistance training performance, perceived exertion, and pain perception. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22, 1950–1957. Kerrigan, S., & Lindsey, T. (2005). Fatal caffeine overdose: Two case reports. Forensic Science International, 153, 67–69. Kovacs, E. M., & Mela, D. J. (2006). Metabolically active functional food ingredients for weight control. Obesity Reviews, 7, 59–78. Lopez-Garcia, E., van Dam, R. M., Rajpathak, S., Willett, W. C., Manson, J. E., & Hu, F. B. (2006). Changes in caffeine intake and long-term weight change in men and women. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 83, 674–680. Ludwig, D. S., Peterson, K. E., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2001). Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: A prospective, observational analysis. Lancet, 357, 505–508. Martin, C. A., Cook, C., Woodring, J. H., Burkhardt, G., Guenthner, G., Omar, H. A., et al. (2008). Caffeine use: Association with nicotine use, aggression, and other psychopathology in
Callous-Unemotional Traits psychiatric and pediatric outpatient adolescents. Scientific World Journal, 22, 512–516. Miller, K. E. (2008a). Wired: Energy drinks, jock identity, masculine norms, and risk taking. Journal of American College Health, 56, 481–489. Miller, K. E. (2008b). Energy drinks, race, and problem behaviors among college students. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 490–497. Nehlig, A. (1999). Are we dependent upon coffee and caffeine? A review on human and animal data. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 23, 563–576. O-Brien, M. C., McCoy, T., Rhodes, S. D., Wagoner, A., & Wolfson, M. (2008). Caffeinated cocktails: Get wired, get drunk, get injured. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15, 453–460. Orbeta, R. L., Overpeck, M. D., Ramcharran, D., Kogan, M. D., & Ledsky, R. (2006). High caffeine intake in adolescents: Associations with difficulty sleeping and feeling tired in the morning. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 451–453. Oteri, A., Salvo, F., Caputi, A. P., & Calapai, G. (2007). Intake of energy drinks in association with alcoholic beverages in a cohort of students of the School of Medicine of the University of Messina. Alcohol: Clinical and Experiential Research, 31(10), 1677–1680. Pollak, C. P., & Bright, D. (2003). Caffeine consumption and weekly sleep patterns in US seventh-, eighth-, and ninth-graders. Pediatrics, 111, 42–46. Schuh, K. J., & Griffiths, R. R. (1997). Caffeine reinforcement: The role of withdrawal. Psychopharmacology, 130, 320–326. Sinclair, C. J., & Geiger, J. D. (2000). Caffeine use in sports. A pharmacological review. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 40, 71–79. Smith, A. (2002). Effects of caffeine on human behavior. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 40, 1243–1255. Swanson, J. A., Lee, J. W., & Hopp, J. W. (1994). Caffeine and nicotine: A review of their joint use and possible interactive effects in tobacco withdrawal. Addictive Behavior, 19, 229–256.
Callous-Unemotional Traits STUART F. WHITE, PAUL J. FRICK Department of Psychology, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA
Overview One of the most common reasons that adolescents are referred to mental health clinics (Frick and Silverthorn 2001) and residential treatment centers (Lyman and Campbell 1996) is for antisocial and
C
aggressive behavior. Also, these behaviors are highly related to juvenile delinquency, which operates at a very high cost to society. These costs include the high monetary costs associated with juvenile crime, the direct harm to victims of juvenile crime, and the reduction in the quality of life for those individuals who live in high-crime neighborhoods (Loeber and Farrington 2000). These outcomes are especially problematic when conduct problems remain stable and affect the child’s adjustment across the life span. For example, a single youth who steadily engages in delinquent offenses for 4 years of his youth and for a further 10 years as an adult can cost society up to $2.3 million (Cohen 1998). Thus, there has been an extensive body of research attempting to understand the causal processes that can lead to some adolescents engaging in serious and persistent forms of aggressive and antisocial behavior. This research has uncovered a large number of risk factors (Dodge and Pettit 2003; Frick and Marsee 2006; Loeber and Farrington 2000). These risk factors include characteristics of the adolescent (e.g., neuropsychological deficits, autonomic irregularities, temperamental traits) and characteristics of the many social contexts (e.g., peer rejection, family dysfunction, neighborhood disorganization) that can influence the adolescent’s development. Thus, theoretical models attempting to explain the development of antisocial and aggressive behavior and related psychiatric diagnoses (e.g., Conduct Disorder) in adolescents need to be able to incorporate this broad array of risk factors into their proposed causal mechanisms. It has also become increasingly clear that, within adolescents who develop severe patterns of aggressive and antisocial behavior, there are likely to be subgroups that may show distinct casual processes leading to their problem behavior and differences in the severity and persistence of their problem behavior. As a result, there have been a number of attempts to define important subgroups of antisocial and aggressive individuals that differ in their types of behavior, risk for future problem behavior, and associated risk factors that could suggest distinct etiologies. One such method focuses on the presence or absence of callous-unemotional (CU) traits (e.g., lack of guilt, lack empathy, callous use of others for one’s own gain).
369
C
370
C
Callous-Unemotional Traits
Callous-Unemotional Traits and Developmental Models of Psychopathy CU traits are prominent in most conceptualizations of psychopathy in adults (e.g., Hare 1993). The construct of psychopathy in adults has proven to designate a particularly severe and violent group of antisocial adults (e.g., Porter and Woodworth 2006) and a group of adults who seem to have distinct causal processes leading to their antisocial behavior (e.g., Patrick 2007). There is substantial debate about how many dimensions best capture the construct of psychopathy in adult samples (see for a discussion Cook et al. 2006). However, at least three dimensions consistently emerge, one of which includes CU traits and has been variously labeled as “deficient affective experience” (Cooke et al. 2006) or the “affective factor” (Hare 2003). The other two dimensions include (a) an arrogant and deceitful interpersonal style involving a narcissistic view of one’s self and conning and manipulative behavior and (b) an impulsive and irresponsible behavioral style involving poorly planned behavior and proneness to boredom. Given the multidimensional structure of psychopathy, why focus on CU traits as the critical dimension for designating a unique group of antisocial youth? For a construct to be important for subtyping within antisocial individuals, it needs to show important areas of independence from general measures of antisocial behavior. That is, if a dimension accounts for the same variance in predicting important external criteria (e.g., risk for future aggression and violence) as general antisocial behavior, the incremental utility of this dimension is limited and it is unlikely to designate a distinct group within antisocial individuals. In adult samples, it is the callous and unemotional dimension that seems to be most specific to individuals’ high psychopathic traits compared to other antisocial individuals (Cooke and Michie 1997). There is evidence that the same is true for youth.
Stability of Callous-Unemotional Traits Before focusing on the associations with external criteria, an important issue that has been raised is whether the behaviors that define CU traits are stable enough in children or adolescents to warrant the
designation of “traits” that implies some level of stability across development (e.g., Edens et al. 2001). There are now a number of studies showing that these traits are relatively stable in childhood, from late childhood to early adolescence, and from adolescence to early adulthood (see Frick and White 2008). However, this level of stability does not imply that these traits are unchangeable and several studies have reported substantial decreases in CU traits in some youths over time (e.g., Lynam et al. 2007).
CU Traits and the Severity of Conduct Problems, Aggression, and Delinquency Several recent qualitative (Frick and Dickens 2006; Frick and White 2008) and quantitative (Edens et al. 2007; Leistico et al. 2008) reviews have been published showing that CU traits are predictive of a more severe, stable, and aggressive pattern of behavior in antisocial youths. For example, Edens et al. (2007) conducted a quantitative meta-analyses of 21 nonoverlapping samples of adolescents showing that measures that include CU traits were associated with general or violent recidivism with effect sizes of r = 0.24 and r = 0.25, respectively. Frick and Dickens (2006) reported on a qualitative review of 24 published studies using 22 independent samples of children and adolescents. Ten of these studies showed a concurrent association between CU traits and measures of aggressive, antisocial, or delinquent behavior and 14 studies showed a predictive relationship with follow-up intervals ranging from 6 months to 10 years. These authors further reported on five studies showing that CU traits were associated with poorer treatment outcomes. Importantly, these studies included community (n = 6), clinic-referred (n = 4), and forensic (n = 13) samples and they included samples ranging in age from 4 to 20. One important issue in interpreting this body of research is that CU traits seem to predict later antisocial behavior even after controlling for other risk factors (e.g., past criminal offenses, drug use, delinquent peers) (Salekin 2008).
Callous-Unemotional Traits and Distinct Correlates to Antisocial Behavior Behavior genetics research supports the possibility that there are different causal processes leading to antisocial
Callous-Unemotional Traits
behavior in youth with CU traits compared to those without these traits (Frick and Viding 2009). Specifically, antisocial behavior in youth with CU traits has been found to be under strong genetic influence, with little evidence of shared environmental influence, in contrast to findings in youth without CU traits. In addition, functional brain imaging studies suggest that the genetic vulnerability to CU traits may be related to deficits in amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex functioning. In addition to these genetic and brain imaging studies, Frick and White (2008) reviewed 27 published studies showing several other important differences between youths with CU and other antisocial youths. Consistent with the brain imaging studies, antisocial children and adolescents with CU traits show deficits in processing negative emotional stimuli, particularly fear and distress in others. Youths with CU traits also are less sensitive to punishment, especially when a rewardoriented response set is primed, they have more positive expectancies in aggressive situations with peers, and they are less likely to show verbal IQ deficits than other antisocial youth. Finally, CU traits have been associated with fearlessness and thrill seeking and with low levels of traits anxiety/neuroticism, whereas conduct problems generally have been unrelated to thrill-seeking behaviors and associated with higher levels of anxiety/neuroticism.
Theoretical Implications of the Distinct Correlates This body of research suggests that antisocial adolescents with CU traits show a number of distinct cognitive, emotional, and personality characteristics supporting the contention that the causal processes leading to their antisocial behavior are different from those operating for other antisocial adolescents. Specifically, children and adolescents with CU traits seem to show a temperament that is characterized by deficits in their emotional arousal to fear and distress in others and abnormalities in their responses to cues of punishment and danger both of which could be related to deficits in amygdala functioning. These temperament characteristics could lead to personality traits characterized by a reduced level of distress over the consequences of their behavior and a tendency to display thrill and novelty-seeking behaviors. This conceptualization has a number of important implications for
C
developmental models of severe antisocial and aggressive behavior in adolescents. First, these findings can be used to link developmental theories of temperament and conscience development with etiological theories of antisocial and aggressive behaviors (Dadds and Salmon 2003; Frick and Morris 2004). Specifically, there have been a number of studies of normally developing children documenting both concurrent (e.g., Fowles and Kochanska 2000) and predictive (Rothbart et al. 1994) associations between a fearless temperament and lower scores on measures of conscience development. Further, this research has led to a number of theories to explain this link, such as fearless children being less likely to experience transgression-related arousal in response to behavior that has been punished by others (Newman 1987; Kochanska 1993) or being less likely to experience empathic arousal linked to distress in others (Blair 1999). In short, the temperamental deficits in emotional reactivity could make it more difficult for a child to develop appropriate levels of guilt, empathy, and other dimensions of conscience that, at its extreme, could result in CU traits. Consistent with this theoretical model, Pardini (2006) reported that the association between fearlessness and violent delinquency was mediated by the presence of CU traits in a sample of adjudicated adolescents. Second, by investigating and understanding the developmental mechanisms that may lead to problems in conscience development, and potentially CU traits, this line of research could provide clues as to possible protective factors that may enhance conscience development in children who may have temperaments that make optimal development more difficult. For example, Cornell and Frick (2007) reported that preschool children who were behaviorally uninhibited showed enhanced conscience development if they experienced consistent discipline and a parenting style that emphasized a strong and obedience-oriented (i.e., authoritarian) approach to parenting. These authors suggested that the under-arousal exhibited by fearless children may require parents to incorporate stronger methods of socialization that bring arousal levels to an optimal range in order for the child to internalize parental norms for prosocial behavior (Kochanska et al. 1994). However, it is also possible that certain parenting practices can lead to too much arousal from even fearless children and negatively affect the development of
371
C
372
C
Callous-Unemotional Traits
conscience (Kochanska 1993). As a result, it has also been proposed that a parent–child mutual responsive orientation that encompasses shared positive affect, parent–child cooperation, and parental warmth and responsiveness may be critical for socializing fearless children (Kochanska and Murray 2000). This type of parenting does not rely on punishment-related arousal for internalization but instead focuses on the positive qualities of the parent–child relationship. Third, the use of CU traits to designate distinct groups of antisocial and aggressive youth could help to expand and integrate some past subtyping attempts (see Frick and Marsee 2006 for a review). For example, an important distinction has been made between children who show largely reactive forms of aggression (e.g., in response to perceived provocation) and those who show both reactive and instrumental (e.g., premeditated aggression for some gain) forms of aggression. There is evidence that children and adolescents who show both forms of aggression show higher levels of CU traits. Further, some research suggests that it may be the CU traits, and not the distinct patterns of aggression, that are most directly related to some of the social-cognitive and emotional deficits displayed by this group of aggressive youth. As another example of the potential for research on CU trait to advance past subtyping approaches, one of the most widely accepted methods for dividing adolescents with delinquent and antisocial behavior into important subgroups is by distinguishing between those who begin showing severe behavior problems in early childhood (i.e., childhood-onset) and those who begin showing severe conduct problems only after the onset of adolescence (i.e., adolescent-onset) (Frick 2006; Moffitt 2003). The presence of CU traits seems to be more highly associated with the childhood-onset trajectory (Dandreaux and Frick 2009). However, these traits seem to designate a more severe, chronic, and aggressive subgroup within this trajectory, and a subgroup with distinct temperamental characteristics (Frick 2006; Frick and Morris 2004). Fourth, by providing a method for defining a distinct subgroup of antisocial youth, this research can also help in developing models to explain other groups of antisocial youth by reducing some of the heterogeneity within antisocial samples (Frick 2006; Frick and Morris 2004). For example, youth with
early onset conduct problems WITHOUT CU traits are more likely to show deficits in verbal intelligence, to show a hostile attribution bias in social situations and to come from families with high rates of dysfunctional parenting practices (see Frick and White 2008). Further, this group exhibits lower levels of aggression than the group with CU traits but, when they are aggressive, it is often confined to reactive forms of aggression (Frick and Dickens 2006). Also, this group seems to be highly reactive to emotional stimuli and to the distress of others (see Frick and White 2008) leading some theories to focus on their problems regulating emotion as being critical for understanding the causes of their behavioral problems (Frick 2006; Frick and Morris 2004).
Methodological Implications In addition to these important theoretical implications of research on CU traits, there are a number of methodological implications for research investigating antisocial and aggressive behavior in youth. Most generally, it suggests that research with adolescents cannot treat antisocial, aggressive, delinquent, or conduct problem behavior as a unitary outcome. That is, research has traditionally focused on documenting what risk factors are associated with antisocial behavior or which risk factors account for the most or the most unique variance in measures of antisocial or aggressive behaviors. However, these overall associations often obscure the fact that a risk factor may only be related to the behavior of a subgroup of antisocial and aggressive youths. What may appear to be a moderate association between conduct problems and a given risk factor may actually turn out to be a substantial association for one subgroup and a nonsignificant association for another subgroup.
Assessment and Treatment Implications In terms of assessment implications, the research on CU traits clearly argues for assessments that separate these traits from other antisocial dimensions. As noted previously in the review of past research, many studies have not separated these affective and interpersonal traits from other dimensions related to antisocial behavior, such as impulsivity, narcissism, or conduct problems (e.g., Blair 1999; Lynam 1997). One issue that
Callous-Unemotional Traits
makes this separation difficult is that most measures that assess these traits typically include only a limited number of items specifically assessing this dimension, often with as few as four (Forth et al. 2003) or six (Frick and Hare 2001) items. Further, and possibly due to this limited item pool, measures of CU traits often have had some significant psychometric limitations, such as displaying poor internal consistency in many detained samples of adolescents (Poythress et al. 2006). One attempt to overcome these limitations is the development of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU; Frick 2004) that provides a more extended assessment (e.g., 24 items) of the construct of CU traits. The factor structure of this measure has been tested in a community sample of German adolescents (n = 1,443) aged 12–18 (Essau et al. 2006), a sample of Greek Cypriot adolescents (n = 347) aged 12–18 (Fanti et al. 2009), and a sample of juvenile offenders (n = 248) aged 12–20 in the United States (Kimonis et al. 2008). In all three samples, a similar factor structure emerged with three factors (e.g., Uncaring, Callousness, Unemotional) loading on a higher-order CU dimension providing the best fit in both samples. Further, in all three samples, the ICU scales were related to antisocial behavior, aggression, delinquency, various personality dimensions, and psychophysiological measures of emotional reactivity. Thus, the ICU could be a promising method for providing a more extended assessment of CU traits (see also Andershed et al. 2002 for another extended measure of CU traits). However, a great deal more testing of this scale would be needed for it to be useful in many applied settings, especially in determining appropriate cut-scores for designating nonnormative and problematic levels of these traits. Further, its format of relying on self-report or the report of others (i.e., parents and teachers) could limit its usefulness for a number of applied purposes (Johnstone and Cooke 2004). In general, there is a need to go beyond single methods for assessing CU traits in both research and practice, given evidence that measures of CU traits, like many other constructs in psychology, do not show strong correlations across methods (Lee et al. 2003). Finally, there are also a number of implications of this research on CU traits for prevention and treatment (Frick 2006). First, by focusing on developmental pathways and by focusing on the developmental
C
mechanisms that may have gone awry in different subgroups of antisocial youth, this research can help to designate important targets of preventive interventions that can focus on enhancing development, such as promoting the development of empathy (Chi-Ming et al. 2003) or the development of emotional regulation (Larson and Lochman 2003), even before the conduct problems and aggression are severe enough to warrant a psychiatric diagnosis. Second, the most successful interventions for children and adolescents with severe antisocial and aggressive behavior problems have two important characteristics: they tend to be comprehensive, focusing on a number of different risk factors that could lead to a child’s behavioral problems and they tend to be individualized in that the focus of the comprehensive intervention is tailored to the child’s unique needs (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 2004; Henggeler et al. 1998). Knowledge of the different characteristics of youth with CU traits compared to other antisocial and aggressive youth could aid in guiding these individualized treatments by helping to define the most important targets of intervention for an individual child (McMahon and Frick 2005).
References Andershed, H., Gustafson, S. B., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2002). The usefulness of self-reported psychopathy-like traits in the study of antisocial behaviour among non-referred adolescents. European Journal of Personality, 16, 383–402. Blair, R. J. R. (1999). Responsiveness to distress cues in the child with psychopathic tendencies. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 135–145. Chi-Ming, K., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. T. (2003). Examining the role of implementation quality in school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science, 4, 55–63. Cohen, M. A. (1998). The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 5–33. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2004). The effects of the Fast Track program on serious problem outcomes at the end of elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 650–661. Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the hare psychopathy checklist. Psychological Assessment, 9, 3–14. Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., & Hart, S. (2006). Facets of clinical psychopathy: Toward clearer measurement. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), The handbook of psychopathy (pp. 91–106). New York: Guildford. Cornell, A. H., & Frick, P. J. (2007). The moderating effects of parenting styles in the association between behavioral inhibition and parent-reported guilt and empathy in preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 305–318.
373
C
374
C
Callous-Unemotional Traits
Dadds, M. R., & Salmon, K. (2003). Punishment insensitivity and parenting: Temperament and learning as interacting risks for antisocial behavior. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 69–86. Dandreaux, D. M., & Frick, P. J. (2009). Developmental pathways to conduct problems: A further test of the childhood and adolescent-onset distinction. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 375–385. Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349–371. Edens, J. F., Campbell, J. S., & Weir, J. M. (2007). Youth psychopathy and criminal recidivism: A meta-analysis of the psychopathy checklist measures. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 53–75. Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise, K. R., & Cauffman, E. (2001). Assessment of ‘juvenile psychopathy’ and its association with violence: A critical review. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 53–80. Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Callous-unemotional traits in a community sample of adolescents. Assessment, 13, 454–469. Fanti, K. A., Frick, P. J., & Georgiou, S. (2009). Linking callousunemotional traits to instrumental and non-instrumental forms of aggression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 285–298. Fowles, D. C., & Kochanska, G. (2000). Temperament as a moderator of pathways to conscience in children: The contribution of electrodermal activity. Psychophysiology, 37, 788–795. Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist: Youth version. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Frick, P. J. (2004). The inventory of callous-unemotional traits. Unpublished rating scale: University of New Orleans. Frick, P. J. (2006). Developmental pathways to conduct disorder. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 15, 311–331. Frick, P. J., & Dickens, C. (2006). Current perspectives on conduct disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports, 8, 59–72. Frick, P., & Hare, R. D. (2001). The antisocial process screening device. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Frick, P. J., & Marsee, M. A. (2006). Psychopathy and developmental pathways to antisocial behavior in youth. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), The handbook of psychopathy (pp. 353–375). New York: Guildford. Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 54–68. Frick, P. J., & Silverthorn, P. (2001). Psychopathy in children. In P. B. Sutker & H. E. Adams (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology (3rd ed., pp. 881–920). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Frick, P. J., & Viding, E. M. (2009). Antisocial behavior from a developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1111–1131. Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). The importance of callousunemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 359–375.
Hare. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York: Guilford. Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the hare psychopathy checklist-revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (1998). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York: Guildford. Johnstone, L., & Cooke, D. J. (2004). Psychopathic-like traits in childhood: Conceptual and measurement concerns. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 103–125. Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Skeem, J., Marsee, M. A., Cruise, K., Munoz, L. C., et al. (2008). Assessing callous-unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the inventory of callousunemotional traits. Journal of the International Association of Psychiatry and Law, 31, 241–251. Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament in early development of conscience. Child Development, 64, 325–347. Kochanska, G., DeVet, K., Goldman, M., Murray, K., & Putnam, S. P. (1994). Maternal reports of conscience development and temperament in young children. Child Development, 65, 852–868. Kochanska, G., & Murray, K. (2000). Mother–child mutually responsive orientation and conscience development: From toddler to early school age. Child Development, 71, 417–431. Larson, J., & Lochman, J. E. (2003). Helping schoolchildren cope with anger. New York: Guilford. Lee, Z., Vincent, G., Hart, S. D., & Corrado, R. R. (2003). The validity of the antisocial process screening device as a self-report measure of psychopathy in adolescent offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 771–786. Leistico, A. R., Salekin, R. T., DeCoster, J., & Rogers, R. (2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 28–45. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 737–762. Lyman, R. D., & Campbell, N. R. (1996). Treating children and adolescents in residential and inpatient settings. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Lynam, D. R. (1997). Pursuing the psychopath: Capturing the fledgling psychopath in a nomological net. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 425–438. Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Loeber, R., & StouthamerLoeber, M. (2007). Longitudinal evidence that psychopathy scores in early adolescence predict adult psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 155–165. McMahon, R. J., & Frick, P. J. (2005). Evidence-based assessment of conduct problems in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 477–505. Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behavior: A 10-year research review and a research agenda. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 49–75). New York: Guilford.
Cancer Newman, J. P. (1987). Reaction to punishment in extraverts and psychopaths: Implications for the impulsive behavior of disinhibited individuals. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 464–480. Pardini, D. A. (2006). The callousness pathway to severe violent delinquency. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 1–9. Patrick, C. J. (2007). Getting to the heart of psychopathy. In H. Herve & J. C. Yuille (Eds.), The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 207–252). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2006). Psychopathy and aggression. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of the psychopathy (pp. 481–494). New York: Guilford. Poythress, N. G., Dembo, R., Wareham, J., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2006). Construct validity of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI) and the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD) with justice involved adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 26–55. Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 21–39. Salekin, R. T. (2008). Psychopathy and recidivism from midadolescence to young adulthood: Cumulating legal problems and limiting life opportunities. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 386–395.
Cancer ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
Cancer affects a small proportion of youth. However, that percentage appears to increase, especially for some forms of cancer. That increase, coupled by an even greater increase in the success of treatments, means that a large segment of the population lives with the effects of childhood cancer. Given that cancer still is remarkably rare compared to other issues youth face, however, the study of cancer and its effects remains challenging due to the difficulties researchers encounter in their efforts to not only study a small group but also study them longitudinally and by studying a wide variety of conditions and circumstances. Still, research in this area has begun to reach important conclusions and highlight findings with considerable significance. Pediatric or childhood cancer (often denoted to cancers that appear before the patients are 21 years of age) remains considerably rare, but it appears to be increasing. Only 1% of instances of cancer are found
C
in patients who are in their teenage years or younger (for a review, see Ward et al. 2006). Although there are many types of cancers, a third of adolescent cancers are leukemia, and a fifth are brain tumors. Studies also report that instances of childhood cancer have become far more numerous in the twentieth century and beginning of the twenty-first century: an increase of more than 400% overall, with a 61% increase in brain tumors in particular from the 1980s to early 2000s. A possible, but still unsubstantiated, explanation is that detection technology has improved during this timespan (a claim supported by findings reporting stability in some forms of cancer, see Linabery and Ross 2007). Still, these increases, and the relatively low rates, are consistent across the Western world. Despite some increases and relatively stable percentages of childhood cancers in some parts of the world, there appears to be considerable variation across societies and within them. There are distinctions between rates of adolescent cancer, from 2 out of 100,000 in India, Israel, and Nigeria to 6 out of 100,000 in Denmark, Australia, and Sweden. More industrialized nations seem to have higher instances, with one explanation for this variance being that cancer is a by-product of industrialization itself and another explanation being that industrialized nations show higher instances because the child mortality rate due to other disease or injury is lower, leaving more children alive to develop cancer. There also is evidence that cancer, specifically leukemia, affects children of higher socioeconomic status more than those of lower socioeconomic status, though these results need to be investigated more thoroughly. Thus, there appears to be variation, but all groups appear to be at risk for cancer. The etiology of cancer remains relatively unknown. Though the origins of cancer are unclear, a “twohit” concept has been proposed. Specifically, actual instances of cancer are viewed as resulting from a genetic susceptibility and a causative event. Understanding genetic predispositions to cancer is of particular note in adolescent cases, since they have had fewer opportunities to be exposed to causative events. It can be assumed that the earlier the instance of cancer, the stronger the influence of the genetic factors. Still, this area of research remains considerably marked by inconclusiveness. Diagnoses and treatments of childhood cancer are similar to those for used for adults. Diagnosis of
375
C
376
C
Cancer
childhood cancer, however, may be somewhat more problematic because a number of the symptoms can be mistaken for other, less drastic illnesses, requiring several rounds of diagnosis. Although diagnosis and later on treatment are variations on the techniques used for adult patients, children actually are distinctive in that they generally are considered more able to endure more complex procedures. Depending on the cancer, surgical intervention generally is the best option, since it involves actual removal of tumor masses. Afterward chemotherapy can be utilized on the remaining cells. In more extreme cases, such as leukemia, chemotherapy can be used aggressively but it can lead to considerable damage, such as damage to bone marrow, which leads to the need for subsequent replacement of the marrow from donors. A number of variations on chemotherapy are being developed that avoid the side effects inherent to radiation treatment. Success rates among pediatric oncology procedures are roughly on par with those of other age groups, but they are bolstered by the longer lifespans remaining after surgery. It is notable that 90% of adolescent cancer patients receive treatment through clinical trials, compared to 10% of adult patients. These clinical trials are procedures using new techniques and therapies, which in part explains the 40–90% increase in cancer survival rates between 1962 and 2006. Advances in treatment have been impressive; the overall 5-year survival rate for pediatric cancer now exceeds 75% (Ries et al. 2005). These developments, however, can present important issues for cancer survivors in that they may experience longterm side effects from treatment ranging from cognitive deficits and organ damage to infertility as well as stress disorders that can reduce their quality of life (see, e.g., Currier et al. 2009). Given the variability of cancer, its effects, and its treatment, it is not surprising to find that variability has been found in survivors’ adjustment to childhood cancer. Some research has suggested that survivors, when compared to others who have not had cancer, may have more difficulties, such as depressive symptoms, somatic complaints, and lower self-esteem (Zebrack et al. 2002). However, most research suggests that early psychological distress (such as depressive and other internalizing symptoms) typically declines to normative levels within the first year after treatment, and survivors are often similar to healthy children
(see Eiser et al. 2000). Although demographic (e.g., gender, race) and medical factors (e.g., age at diagnosis, treatment severity) may vary in their associations with long-term adjustment, the severity of late effects has been linked more consistently to difficulties. As was found in one leading study (Zebrack et al. 2002), it was exposure to intensive chemotherapy (and not any other medical variables, including diagnostic category, age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis, and duration of treatment) that predicted symptomatic scores for depression and somatic distress in later life. Overall, however, research reveals a remarkable resilience among children who survive cancer (see Robinson et al. 2009), with large national studies concluding, for example, that quality of life differences between survivors and controls tend to be small and for the most part probably not even clinically important (Maunsell et al. 2006. Findings like these reveal the remarkable progress that has been made in responding to cancer and the effects it can have on the increasingly large percentage of youth who overcome childhood cancer.
References Currier, J. M., Jobe-Shields, L. E., & Phipps, S. (2009). Stressful life events and posttraumatic stress symptoms in children with cancer. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22, 28–35. Eiser, C., Hill, J. J., & Vance, Y. H. (2000). Examining the psychological consequences of surviving childhood cancer: Systematic review as a research method in pediatric psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 25, 449–460. Linabery, A. M., & Ross, J. A. (2007). Trends in childhood cancer incidence in the U.S. (1992–2004). Cancer, 112, 416–432. Maunsell, E., Pogany, L., Barrera, M., Shaw, A. K., & Speechley, K. N. (2006). Quality of life among long-term adolescent and adult survivors of childhood cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24, 2527–2535. Ries, L. A., Eisner, M. P., Kosary, C. L., Hankey, B. F., Miller, B. A., Clegg, L., et al. (Eds.). (2005). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2002. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Robinson, K. E., Gerhardt, C. A., Vannatta, K., & Noll, R. B. (2009). Survivors of childhood cancer and comparison peers: The influence of early family factors on distress in emerging adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 23–31. Ward, E. M., Thun, M. J., Hannan, L. M., & Jamal, A. (2006). Interpreting cancer trends. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1076, 29–53. Zebrack, B. J., Zaltzer, L. K., Whitton, J., Mertens, A. C., Odom, L., Berkow, R., et al. (2002). Psychological outcomes in long-term survivors of childhood leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, and nonHodgkin’s lymphoma: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivors Study. Pediatrics, 110, 42–52.
Cerebrum
Cerebellum ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
The cerebellum is the part of the brain that is located just above the brainstem and beneath the occipital lobes at the base of the skull. The term cerebellum, derived from Latin, means “little brain.” It derived its name from the way it looks (as a small brain under a larger brain) and due to what was thought to be its primary function, which was to control muscles, coordinate movement, and the ability to learn complex motor sequences. More recently, research has indicated that the cerebellum also contributes to non-motor functions and plays an important role in higher cognitive functioning, most notably thought processes and emotions. Studies with more sophisticated research methods now indicate that selected regions of the cerebellum relate more to cognitive aspects of performance than to motor function (Middleton and Strick 1997), and that parts of the cerebellum are activated when tasks involve language, visuospatial analyses, learning, and working memory (see Stoodley and Schmahmannm 2009). In addition, the cerebellum has been implicated in several neurodevelopmental disorders such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, and schizophrenia (see Bishop 2002; Seidman et al. 2005). Increasing evidence of the important role of the cerebellum’s cognitive functions during development also emerges from research relating to intellectual development and learning (for a review, see Steinlin 2007). Although little is known about the normal development of the cerebellum during childhood or adolescence (Diamond 2000), evidence does indicates that the higher cognitive functioning that is now associated with the cerebellum improves during adolescence, which suggests that the cerebellum undergoes substantial development during this period.
Cross-References
C
Diamond, A. (2000). Close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex. Child Development, 71, 44–56. Middleton, F. A., & Strick, P. L. (1997). Cerebellar output channels. International Review of Neurobiology, 41, 61–82. Seidman, L. J., Valera, E. M., & Makris, N. (2005). Structural brain imaging of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1263–1272. Steinlin, M. (2007). The cerebellum in cognitive processes: Supporting studies in children. Cerebellum, 6, 237–241. Stoodley, C. J., & Schmahmannm, J. D. (2009). Functional topography in the human cerebellum: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage, 44, 489–501.
Cerebral Cortex ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
The cerebral cortex is also known as the cerebrum. The cerebrum consists of two cerebral hemispheres, each of which is subdivided into the frontal lobe, parietal lobe, occipital lobe, and temporal lobe. For a description of the nature and function of those parts, see the various divisions of the cortex, for example, frontal lobe, temporal lobe, and parietal lobe. For an analysis of cortical development, see generally Shaw et al. (2006).
Cross-References ▶ Brain Maturation
References Shaw, P., Greenstein, D., Lerch, J., Ciasen, L., Lenroot, R., & Gogtay, N. (2006). Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. Nature, 440, 676–679.
Cerebrum ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
▶ Brain Maturation
References Bishop, D. V. (2002). Cerebellar abnormalities in developmental dyslexia: Cause, correlate or consequence. Cortex, 38, 491–498.
The cerebrum is the largest part of the human brain. The cerebrum is located in the anterior portion of the forebrain and it is the image that comes to mind when
377
C
378
C
Cheating
thinking of the human brain. It can be descriptively divided into two hemispheres or four lobes (sections). The cerebrum’s hemispheres are the right hemisphere (which controls the left side of the body) and the left hemisphere (which controls the right side of the body). The right hemisphere often is associated with creativity; the left hemisphere is often associated with logical abilities. The four lobes include the frontal lobe, parietal lobe, occipital lobe, and temporal lobe. These lobes are associated with higher brain function, such as thought and action. Adolescence is a time of immense growth in brain development, especially in terms of fine-tuning functions relating to cognitive and emotional development, both in terms of healthy and unhealthy development (see Steinberg 2005; Paus et al. 2008).
prevalence at all educational levels (Cizek 1999; McCabe and Bowers 1994). Rates of cheating are higher among adolescents than among younger children. Cizek reported that one third of elementary school children cheat whereas a 2006 survey of the Josephson Institute of Ethicsfound that 38% of middle school youth and 60% of high school youth have cheated on an exam in the past year. In the Josephson Institutes’ more recent (2008) report, 64% of high school students cheated on an exam in the last year and over one third downloaded material directly from the Internet for an assignment. With the transition to college, cheating rates decline; although, this decline continues throughout college and into graduate school (Miller et al. 2007) the behavior by no means disappears. This essay focuses on cheating among adolescents.
Cross-References ▶ Brain Maturation
References Paus, T., Keshavan, M., & Giedd, J. N. (2008). Why do many psychiatric disorders emerge during adolescence. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 9, 947–957. Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 69–74.
Cheating TAMERA B. MURDOCK Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA
Overview Academic cheating refers to the use of unauthorized means of acquiring information in an assessment situation involving grading (Garavalia et al. 2007): A teacher or professor is falsely led to believe that the student has completed something under a prescribed set of rules when, in fact, they did not. As described by Cizek (2003), cheating falls into one of four categories including the unapproved transfer of information between individuals, the unapproved use of materials, exploiting weaknesses in others, and plagiarism. Cheating has been the focus of much recent media both because of its frequency, and its increased
Measurement of Cheating When studies report on students’ cheating, they are typically using some type of self-reported survey measure to reach their conclusion. These measures have at least two problems: lack of shared definition and selfpresentation bias. Adolescents in middle and high school do not always agree with teachers or other school authorities on what constitutes cheating or how severe various cheating behaviors are (Evans and Craig 1990). For example, in the Benson Strategy group survey, 23% of adolescents thought that storing notes on a phone to use during an exam was not cheating, and 20% classified texting friends during an exam as acceptable behavior. Among college students, Whitely and Keith-Spiegel (2002) found that students and professors agreed that copying and using notes during exams are cheating as is purchasing papers to hand in as one’s own. The agreement was not as strong for unauthorized collaboration, submitting the same paper for multiple classes or copying homework. Historical evidence suggests that while cheating among adolescents has increased and the perceived severity of the behavior has gone down (Josephson Institute of Ethics 2008). Finally, even measures that use similar questions sometimes refer to different time periods, ranging from 1 month to “ever,” making comparisons across studies difficult. Adolescents also appear to be motivated to present themselves in a favorable light. Each year on the survey by the Josephson Institute of Ethics, they include a question asking students if they were honest on all
Cheating
their answers on the survey. Even in this completely anonymous situation, only 74% of the students in the 2008 survey said they answered every question honestly. (Note, however, that this survey asks about many kinds of unethical behavior, not just academic cheating.) In college populations, cheating has also been measured by actual cheating on laboratory tasks (Whitely 1998). These tasks include problems or puzzles that would be impossible to accomplish without breaking the prescribed rules (i.e., cheating) or where an overt temptation to cheat is provided by leaving the answer key within sight. Although these experiments provide a more accurate measure of cheating behavior than self-report measures, it is difficult to know how behavior in this situation generalizes to actual classroom situations where the stakes associated with ones’ performance are much different. In classroom settings, particularly with high stakes tests, various statistical methods have been used to detect cheating as described by Haney and Clarke (2007). These algorithms estimate the likelihood that a person has cheated based on concordance between one’s answers and answers of those seated around them but are only useful for detecting copying.
How Students Cheat In their (2007) chapter on How Students Cheat, Garavalia and colleagues report that whereas younger students typically limit themselves to looking at others’ papers, adolescents cheat by copying from others on exams and homework and allowing others to do the same, using unauthorized notes during an exam, plagiarizing content from text and/or the Internet, and failing to cite their sources. Adolescents today use crib sheets that are far more sophisticated from those of prior generations. Not only do they tape pieces of paper under the brim of their hats or behind their water bottles, there are Internet sites where a student can order a “can of soda” that has been printed with the student’s own crib text in a format that mirrors the text of the consumer product. Most calculators and phones are actually computer devices that students can use to store equations or any other text they wish to retrieve (Lathrop and Foss 2000). Similarly, communicating via unauthorized devices such as cell phones has become a major form of cheating with students sending text messages to one
C
another during exams, taking photos of exam questions to give to their peers, and surfing the Internet for exam answers. In a nationally representative poll of adolescents ages 12–18, the Beneson Strategy Group (Common Sense Media 2009) found that one third of youth who had a phone admitted to cheating with it in school and over 50% had used the Internet for cheating. Many adolescents take examinations that are delivered via the computer and these situations present their own unique opportunities for cheating. One advantage to these systems is that they allow an instructor to easily deliver many versions of the same test, randomizing both the items that are delivered and the order in which the answers appear. However, none of these technologies insures that the designated examinee is actually taken the exam unless the computer is equipped with sophisticated person identification hardware and software, which still does not guarantee that the test taker is the only person in the room. Access to the World Wide Web has made information available on demand, making research efforts far faster and more comprehensive than in prior generations. Resources such as Google Scholar allow students to retrieve academic papers on almost any topic with a few clicks of the keyboard and most academic libraries in middle school and beyond have some access to electronic reference systems. Internet access has also made it easier for students to plagiarize papers either by cutting and pasting text from sites without citations or downloading entire papers from “paper mills” that are online. (Lathrop and Foss 2000).
Demographic Characteristics of Cheaters Three demographic factors most commonly examined in relation to cheating are gender, age, and religion. The evidence for gender differences in cheating among adolescents is inconsistent, but seems to suggest that cheating may be an equal opportunity phenomenon. In the latest survey of high school students by the Josephson Institute of Ethics (2008), 31% of females versus 42% of males admitted to having plagiarized from the Internet in the past year, but rates of test cheating were almost identical at 64% and 63%. Whitley’s (1998) meta-analysis of cheating in college populations revealed moderate effect sizes for gender when self-reported cheating was measured, but very
379
C
380
C
Cheating
small effect sizes when actual behavior was measured suggesting that while males admit to cheating more than females, it may be a self-presentational rather than a behavioral effect. Although rates of cheating vary across age, increasing through high school and then decreasing though college and graduate school, within individuals, Davis and Ludvigson (1995) found that the sooner one begins to cheat at the K-12 level, the more likely one is to continue to cheat in college. Similarly, the Josephson Institute of Ethics (2008) study of adult ethical behavior found significant differences between those who had and had not cheated on at least two exams in high school on a variety of adult cheating behaviors such as cheating on one’s taxes, lying to one’s spouse, etc. The findings on religious correlates of cheating suggest no clear differences as a function of religious affiliation (Miller et al. 2007) and adolescents attending religious high schools report cheating on tests at the same frequency as students attending secular schools in the survey by the Josephson Institute of Ethics (2008).
Theoretical Perspectives on Cheating Research on cheating has come from many academic disciplines including developmental and educational psychology, social psychology, sociology, and education, leading to a literature base that is highly disjointed, with no overarching theoretical frame. Several attempts have been made in the past 10 years to provide that framework. In contrast to early understandings of cheating as an individual phenomenon, all these perspectives emphasize the importance of understanding cheating as a person–environment interaction. Three of these perspectives are reviewed below. Moral Development and Cheating. Beginning with the now classic studies by Hartshorne and May in 1928, researchers have tried to explain cheating using theories of morality and moral development. This seemingly obvious relationship has proved to quite complex. As conceptualized by Kohlberg (1984), the earliest or preconventional stage of moral reasoning is characterized by decision making that is responsive to rewards and punishments. By adolescence, however, most youth should be reasoning conventionally, using laws, customs, and other forms of authority as their basis. A smaller percentage will have achieved what Kohlberg calls post-conventional reasoning, using abstract principles of justice. Blasi (1980) found moral reasoning to
predict cheating in 7 of 17 experimental studies he reviewed; across the correlational literature of college populations, relations between moral reasoning and moral behavior were moderate (Whitely 1998). The relations between moral reasoning and cheating appear to be highly contextual. For example, among college students, higher level of morality deterred cheating in situations characterized by high but not low surveillance (Cocoran and Rotter 1987) suggesting that careful proctoring might deter students with more developed morality from cheating, but without surveillance, student cheating will not vary as a function of these beliefs. Similarly, Malinowski and Smith (1985) reported that when incentives for performance are given, rates of cheating differ between those higher and lower in moral development, but these rates do not vary when no such incentives are provided. In addition, it appears that even youth who cheat see themselves as largely ethical people. Recall that in the Josephson Institute data, 64% said they had cheated on an exam in the past year. Among this same group, 93% were reported being satisfied with their own personal ethics and 77% thought they were better than most people they know at doing what it right. It may be that adolescents do not view academic cheating as a moral issue, but as an issue of what Turiel (1983) calls “social convention.” Decisions that fall within the realm of social convention are not guided by absolute abstract principles but rather by contextualized beliefs of what is right and wrong in a given set of circumstances. In the cheating literature, “cheating attitudes,” or “neutralizing attitudes” (Sykes and Matza 1957) assess adolescents’ beliefs about the acceptability of cheating and are the strongest, most consistent predictor of actual cheating behavior. Students neutralize cheating in at least three ways. First, they point to the normativeness of the behavior. Indeed, some students see “not cheating” as disadvantageous in a society where so many are dishonest (Velmans and Koppel 2004). Among adolescents in grades 9 through 12, 33% of females and 48% of male adolescents in grades 9 through 12 agree that “a person has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed” (Josephson Institute of Ethics 2008). Similarly, cheating increases when students view their peers as either cheating themselves or tolerant of academic dishonesty (Whitely 1998). A second neutralizing technique involves externalizing the blame onto
Cheating
teachers or the situation by pointing out some extenuating circumstance that “made” the student be dishonest. For example, students report that unfair tests are one of the main contributors to their decision to cheat (Whitely and Keith-Speigel 2002). Finally, students neutralize by minimizing the importance of the behavior, such as “it is not a big deal; it is just a quiz.” (Murdock and Stephens 2007). In short, a substantial number of youth believe that cheating is not a serious moral transgression, but is simply one of many goal attainment strategies. Theory of Planned Behavior Applied to Cheating. Whitley (Whitely 1998) summarized the findings on academic cheating within the theory of planned deviant behavior developed by Beck and Ajzen (1991). Within this framework, adolescents’ intentions to cheat are presumed to be the most proximal determinant of cheating behavior, moderated by the situational constraints that make it more or less easy to do so. These intentions are shaped by students’ attitudes and a cost-benefit analysis of the specific situation. Attitudes include neutralizing attitudes, perceived norms related to cheating, and one’s sense of moral obligation not to cheat. Costs and benefits are largely defined in terms of what the adolescent expects to gain from dishonesty, versus their perceived ability to get away undetected. Benefits from cheating are the highest for students who place more emphasis on success (see Achievement Motivation Factors Applied to Cheating) and whose expected performance is low due to either personal or situational factors. As such, it is not surprising that among the college population students are more apt to cheat if they are lower in academic self-efficacy, have poorer past performance, higher rates of test anxiety, poor study strategies, or inadequate study time (Whitely 1998). Cheating may be an outgrowth of the balancing act many students face as they try to juggle multiple classes, jobs, and extracurricular activities. It also appears that cheating rates are affected by students’ perceptions that classroom factors are interfering with their goal attainment. Adolescents from high school through college believe that cheating is more acceptable when exams are unfair or the instructional quality is poor, reducing students’ control over their grade outcomes (Murdock and Stephens 2007). On the cost side, students who perceive they are likely to get away with cheating are more apt to do so,
C
which is probably a large reason why past cheating predicts future dishonest behavior. Numerous instructional strategies have long been documented to increase the likelihood of detection such as scrambling test questions and answers (Houston 1983), assigning seats (Houston 1986), using software to detect plagiarism (Cizek 2003), and instituting an honor policy (Mc Cabe and Trevino 1993). At the college levels, however, many professors report that they ignore cheating (KeithSpiegel et al. 1998; Simon et al. 2003). Similarly, a study of high school math and science teachers found many of them had low efficacy for detecting cheating and only moderate confidence that there would be administrative consequences if students were caught cheating (Murdock et al. 2008). Achievement Motivation Applied to Cheating. Constructs from achievement motivation were the basis of a model of cheating proposed by Murdock and Anderman in 2006. Within this framework, individual and contextual variables that influence students’ answers to three questions determine the likelihood of their cheating: “What do I hope to accomplish here,” “Can I accomplish what I want?” and “What are the costs associated with cheating?” Although many of these aspects parallel the theory of planned behavior, this framework places a specific emphasis on the students’ goals and contextual factors that influence those goals. “What do I hope to accomplish here?” is captured by goal orientation theory, a social-cognitive theory of achievement motivation that stresses the importance of students’ reasons for engaging in academic tasks as important determinants of other behavior such as effort, persistence, avoidance, and cheating (Anderman 2007). Students who pursue learning for its own sake, value effort, and persist in the face of difficulties are said to have task or mastery orientations whereas those whose primary goal is to appear smart and to accomplish as much as possible with the least amount of effort are said to hold performance or ego goals. Still others look at extrinsic goals, which, like performance goals, emphasize the importance of the perceived external reinforcements one receives by accomplishing a task. Several scholars have argued that mastery goals should be inversely related to cheating, as cheating will undermine rather than improve actual learning. In contrast, holding performance goals might predict
381
C
382
C
Cheating
increased cheating as any additional accomplishment, by whatever means, would help a person to appear smart. The data across the spectrum of adolescent age groups are largely consistent with these theoretical predictions. For example, two studies of middle school youth found that adolescents who were more extrinsically oriented were also more likely to cheat (Anderman et al. 1998; Murdock et al. 2001). Anderman and his colleagues also found lower level of cheating to be associated with stronger mastery orientations. Among college students, Weiss et al. (1993) reported higher rates of academic dishonesty among those with “grade orientations,” and lower rates among those who endorsed learning orientations. This association was replicated by Wryobeck and Whitley (1999). Conversely, college students who are interested and engaged in a topic have been found to be less apt to cheat (Schraw et al. 2007). Contextual factors influence students’ goals and the likelihood that they will cheat. Paralleling individuals’ achievement goals, motivation theorists have offered descriptions of schools and classrooms as putting a relative emphasis on learning or performance. These mastery versus performance goal structures have been found both to predict students’ personal goals as well as their classroom behavior. In general, mastery goal structures are tied to more adaptive behavior than performance goal; thus, increases in cheating as children move from elementary to middle to high school may be in part attributable to the changes in the emphasis put on performance versus mastery goals at those grade levels. In 2002, Anderman and Midgley examined changes in students’ personal goals and perceived goal structures in their mathematics classrooms in the fall of grade 8, spring of grade 8, and fall of grade 9. Cheating increased over time, but the biggest increase between grade 8 and 9 was among those adolescents who perceived themselves as going from mastery to a performance-focused classroom. At the college level, Jordan (2001) demonstrated that between-courses differences in personal cheating can be partially explained by the relative personal and classroom emphasis on extrinsic goals. Beyond the literature that is directly tied to goal theory, there is significant evidence that increased rates of cheating are related to perceptions of academic pressure for high performance. Cheating has been linked to high-stakes testing (Nichols and Berliner 2007) and to students’ reports that they feel under enormous
pressure to succeed in school (Stephens and Nicholson 2008). In his highly acclaimed book, The Cheating Culture, David Callahan (2005) argues that the increased competitiveness of our society has made many goals extremely difficult to obtain, encouraging people to do whatever is necessary to achieve their goals. As with the theory of planned behavior, Murdock and Anderman also note that students assess the costs of cheating. Rather than simply focusing on detection costs however, they also stress the potential cost to one’s identity of engaging in the behavior (see also Stephens 2004). As such, neutralization techniques are captured as a strategy that reduces the cost to oneself for cheating.
References Anderman, E. M. (2007). The effects of personal, classroom, and school goal structures on academic cheating. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 87–105). Burlington: Elsevier. Anderman, E. M., Greisinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 84–93. Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301. Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1–45. Callahan, D. (2005). The cheating culture. Orlando: Harcourt. Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Mahwah: Lawrence arlbaum Associates. Cizek, G. J. (2003). Detecting and preventing classroom cheating: Promoting integrity in assessment. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Cocoran, K. J., & Rotter, J. B. (1987). Morality-conscience guilt scale as a predictor of ethical behavior in a cheating situation among college females. The Journal of General Psychology, 114, 117–123. Common Sense Media. (2009). High teach cheating: Cell phones and cheating in schools: A national Poll. Retrieved on December 15, 2009, from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/ Hi-Tech%20Cheating%20-%20Summary%20NO%20EMBARGO %20TAGS.pdf Davis, S. F., & Ludvigson, W. H. (1995). Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposal for remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 119–121. Evans, E. D., & Craig, D. (1990). Teacher and student perceptions of academic cheating in middle and senior high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 44–52. Garavalia, L., Olson, E., Russell, E., & Christensen, L. (2007). How do students cheat? In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 33–58). Burlington: Elsevier. Haney, W. M., & Clarke, M. J. (2007). Cheating on tests: Prevalence, detection and implications for online testing. In
Cheerleading M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 255–287). Burlington: Elsevier. Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. (1928). Studies in deceit. New York: Macmillan. Houston, J. P. (1983). Alternate test forms as means of reducing multiple-choice answer copying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 230–232. Houston, J. P. (1986). Classroom answer copying: Roles of acquaintanceship and free versus assigned seating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 230–232. Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of perceived motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 233–247. Josephson Institute of Ethics. (2006). Youth ethics report card. Retrieved August 15, 2007, from http://www.josephsoninstitute. org/reportcard/data-tables.html. Josephson Institute of Ethics. (2008). Youth ethics report card. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from http://josephsoninstitute.org/ pdf/ReportCard_press-release_2006-1013.pdf Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Washburn, J. (1998). Why professors ignore cheating: Opinions of a national sample of psychology instructors. Ethics & Behavior, 8, 215–227. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Lathrop, A., & Foss, K. (2000). Student cheating and plagiarism in the Internet era: A wake-up call. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited. Malinowski, C. I., & Smith, C. P. (1985). Moral reasoning and moral conduct: An investigation prompted by Kohlberg’s theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1016–1027. McCabe, D. L., & Bowers, W. J. (1994). Academic dishonesty among males in college: A thirty year perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 35(1), 5–10. McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522–538. Miller, A. D., Murdock, T. B., Anderman, E. M., & Poindexter, A. L. (2007). Who are all these cheaters? Characteristics of students who are academically dishonest. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 9–32). Burlington: Elsevier. Murdock, T. B., Beauchamp, A. S., & Hinton, A. M. (2008). Predictors of cheating and cheating attributions: Does classroom context influence cheating and blame for cheating? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23, 477–492. Murdock, T. B., Hale, N., & Weber, M. (2001). Predictors of cheating among early adolescents: Social and academic motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 34–45. Murdock, T. B., & Stephens, J. M. (2007). Is cheating wrong? Students’ reasoning about academic dishonesty. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 229–253). Burlington: Elsevier. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). The pressure to cheat in a high-stakes testing environment. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 289– 310). Burlington: Elsevier.
C
Schraw, G., Olafson, L., Kuch, F., Lehman, T., Lehman, S., & McCrudden, M. T. (2007). Interest and academic cheating. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp. 58–85). Burlington: Elsevier. Simon, C. A., Carr, J. R., McCullough, S. M., Morgan, S. J., Oleson, T., & Ressel, M. (2003). The other side of academic dishonesty: The relationship between faculty skepticism, gender and strategies for managing student academic dishonesty cases. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 193–204. Stephens, J. M. (2004). Beyond reasoning: The role of moral identities, sociomoral regulation, and social context in academic cheating among high school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego. Stephens, J. M., & Nicholson, H. (2008). Cases of incongruity: Exploring the divide between adolescents’ beliefs and behaviors related to academic dishonesty. Educational Studies, 34, 361–376. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. New York: Cambridge University Press. Velmans, J., & Koppel, T. (2004). The cheating crisis. Prime Time Live [Television broadcast]. New York: American Broadcast Company. Weiss, J., Gilbert, K., Giordano, P., & Davis, S. F. (1993). Academic dishonesty, type A behavior, and classroom orientation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 101–102. Whitely, B. E., Jr. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274. Whitely, B. E., Jr., & Keith-Speigel, P. (2002). Academic dishonesty: An educator’s guide. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wryobeck, J. M., & Whitley, B. E. (1999). Educational values orientation and peer perceptions of cheaters. Ethics & Behavior, 9, 231–234.
Cheerleading ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA Cheerleading is an organized activity, sometimes a competitive sport, that originated from cheering college student fans. Cheerleading combines gymnastics and loud cheers and is usually associated with girls and sporting events. Cheerleading squads appear ubiquitous and present in most schools with competitive sport teams and, not surprisingly, involve millions of adolescents. Estimates reveal, for example, that about 3.8 million American youth, 97% of whom are female, participate in cheerleading in any given year (see, e.g., Bettis and Adams 2006). Although males can be part of
383
C
384
C
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
cheerleading, it typically remains viewed as an activity marked by what has been conceptualized as emphasized femininity (Connell 1987). That type of femininity is assumed to be readily obvious by observers of cheerleaders, as cheerleaders participate at events to show their support and enthusiasm while doing so in sexually charged ways (see Kurman 1986). In addition to highlighting sexualized femininity, cheerleading is viewed as exemplifying normative American girlhood, which is white, middle class, and heterosexual (see Adams and Bettis 2003; Grindstaff and West 2006). Cheerleading remains considerably popular even despite increased opportunities for girls to participate in a variety of sports activities and despite the recognition that participating in cheerleading can contribute to negative health outcomes (see Whisenhunt et al. 2008) and that being denied admission to cheerleading squads associates with negative social and psychological consequences (Barnett 2006).
References Adams, N., & Bettis, P. (2003). Cheerleader! An American icon. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Barnett, L. A. (2006). Flying high or crashing down: Girls’ accounts of trying out for cheerleading and dance. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 514–541. Bettis, P. J., & Adams, N. G. (2006). Short skirts and breast juts: Cheerleading, eroticism and schools. Sex Education, 6, 121–133. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Grindstaff, L., & West, E. (2006). Cheerleading and the gendered politics of sport. Social Problems, 53, 500–518. Kurman, G. (1986). What does girls’ cheerleading communicate? Journal of Popular Culture, 20, 57–64. Whisenhunt, B. L., Williamson, D. A., Drab-Hudson, D. L., & Walden, H. (2008). Intervening with coaches to promote awareness and prevention of weight pressures in cheerleaders. Eating and Weight Disorders, 13, 102–110.
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (1974) is the major federal legislation
addressing child abuse and neglect in the United States. Originally enacted in 1974, the Act has been amended several times in ways that add different emphases and fund new initiatives. The focus on funding is of significance because it is the major way that the federal legislation can be implemented through the states (Levesque 2008). Given that much of what guides responses to child maltreatment is defined by state law, the federal government influences those definitions and policies by providing resources, typically grants and technical assistance, to implement programs. As a result, CAPTA serves as a powerful force that broadly shapes legal and social responses to child maltreatment. The federal legislation recognizes and encourages states to adopt a comprehensive approach to dealing with child maltreatment. That expansive approach seeks to integrate the work of social service, legal, health, mental health, education, and substance abuse agencies and organizations. It also seeks to strengthen coordination among all levels of government, and with private agencies, civic, religious, and professional organizations, and individual volunteers. The legislation also emphasizes the need for abuse and neglect prevention, assessment, investigation, and treatment at the local level. It further seeks to ensure that agencies and organizations responding to child maltreatment allegations are properly trained and that support staff have the specialized knowledge needed to carry out their child protection duties. Lastly, it recognizes the need to be sensitive to ethnic and cultural diversity. These are incredibly challenging goals, and they have resulted in a truly massive child welfare system. In addition to providing resources and leadership for efforts addressing child maltreatment, the legislation is distinctive in the manner that it has defined child maltreatment, and how those definitions have tended to be accepted by states (see Levesque 2008). The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act defines child abuse and neglect as, at a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation. It also defines as child abuse and neglect an act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk of serious harm. Typically, a child is someone under the age of 18, although what may constitute a specific form of child abuse may vary
Child and Adolescent Labor
depending on the child’s age. All states have accepted these minimal definitions, and most have added to them to recognize and respond to the broad variety of ways that children can be maltreated. Importantly, given that the system is based on civil law rather than criminal law, and given that it seeks to prevent child maltreatment and reunify families, the child protection laws primarily refer to cases of harm to a child caused by parents or other caregivers. Child protection laws generally do not include harm caused by other people, such as acquaintances or strangers. Those latter harms are governed by criminal law, as are some of the harms caused by parents and caregivers if they rise to a certain level of seriousness (Levesque 2008).
Cross-References ▶ Adoption and Safe Families Act
References Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (1974). 42 USC 5101. Levesque, R. J. R. (2008). Rethinking child maltreatment law: Returning to first principles. New York: Springer.
Child and Adolescent Labor ELIZABETH M. WHEATON1, EDWARD J. SCHAUER2 1 Equip the Saints (NPO), Prairie View, TX, USA 2 Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX, USA
Overview Child labor, the labor of young adolescents, is a complex part of the labor market. Some children are involved in jobs that teach them work ethic and to become productive adults. Other children are subjected to the worst forms of child labor; labor that destroys the body, mind, and spirit. This essay looks at child labor policies, reasons children work, types of child labor, and the danger child laborers face. These listings are not comprehensive. Where labor laws and their enforcement are lax, child labor exists. No industry is exempt from child labor. This is an introduction to child labor in the world today.
C
385
Child Labor Data Child labor is the effort and hours of young people under the age of 15 performing activities that, when performed by adults, would normally earn wages. This age range varies depending upon specific national laws and particular international conventions. Child labor is difficult to quantify due to the varying ages at which different cultures view children as becoming adults, the lack of reliable data collection, and the presence of an underground economy using the labor of children. The International Labour Organization (ILO) reports that there are over 200 million child laborers in the world today. Over half of these children are engaged in hazardous work; almost a third are under the age of 10. The most comprehensive source of child labor data comes from the ILO’s Statistical Information and Monitoring Program on Child Labour (SIMPOC). This dataset includes information on child labor from 19 countries including Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya, Malawi, Nicaragua, Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, and Zambia. The ILO’s International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) details specific types of work in which children participate. In general there is a negative view of child labor. This comes from the common belief that if a child is working, the child is not going to school. While this may be true in some cases, the real problem may be a lack of schooling opportunities. In addition, much of what people know about child labor is collected from documentaries on the worst forms of child labor. It is important to discern this type of issue when making policy recommendations. For example, campaigns against child labor, which include boycotting products and certifications programs (such as RugMark, country-specific cocoa farming certifications, and child-labor-free forestry certifications), can help or harm the children, depending upon what happens to the child if he no longer has an occupation.
Child Labor Policies Child labor policies vary by country and by international convention. Age is important when describing the labor of children because of the country differences in perceived “adulthood.” Child labor research
C
386
C
Child and Adolescent Labor
generally uses data on children below the age of 16. In some cultures, children are considered of marriage and childbearing age (and thus to be “adults”) by their early teens. The US Department of Labor enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA stipulates work that is allowed for persons under the age of 18 and considers the minimum age of employment to be 14 for most occupations. An individual is considered an adult in the USA when he reaches the age of 18. Until this time, his parents or guardians have legal control of his activities. Many parents accept the adolescent’s employment as a part of becoming an adult. The adolescent may be earning an income to support his own lifestyle or to contribute to the household’s income. International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 138 was adopted in 1973. It places the minimum working age at 15; however, exceptions do exist for light work (ages 13–15) and for hazardous work (age 18, but 16 if under strict conditions) in developed countries. The minimum working age for children in developing countries is 14, with the exemption for light work by children between the ages of 12 and 14. ILO Recommendation 146 concentrates on national policy, minimum age requirements, hazardous employment, conditions of employment, and enforcement. The ILO’s International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) was established in 1992 with the goal to eliminate child labor. The ILO’s 1999 Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour lists all forms of slavery of children (including their sale or trafficking, debt bondage, and forced or compulsory labor), the commercial sexual exploitation of children (including prostitution and pornography), and the use of children in the commission of crime. ILO Recommendation 190 supplements Convention 182 by listing requirements of programs of action against child labor, detailing types of hazardous work by children, and providing specific information about program implementation. The United Nations’ 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child discusses the universal rights of the child. There are two accompanying, though optional, U.N. protocols. The first deals specifically with child soldiers or “children involved in military conflicts.” The second discusses the trafficking, prostitution, and pornography of children.
Specific interest in the labor of children comes from both the alternatives forgone by the child who is active in the labor market (as described above) as well as the physical and mental cost to the child of performing the labor. Because of their development, children are far less able to perform heavy physical labor. In addition, children do not have the same mental development as older youth. If a child is working, he may be forgoing opportunities for further education, for leisure activities (such as sports or socialization), or for rest.
Reasons for Child Labor There are numerous reasons that children work. A child’s time may be allocated by the head of the household or caretaker to do unpaid chores or to earn an income. The wages earned by the child may be used for the child’s own household (if he or she is head of the household) or for personal needs; for contributions to the household of which the child is a part; or for the expenses of a caretaker. In countries where there is famine or high unemployment, a child’s labor income may mean the difference between the starvation and survival for the child and, perhaps, the child’s family.
Uses of Income Child Labor as Income for the Child’s Own Household As social units disintegrate due to disease, warfare, or family problems, some children become heads of their own households. The household may consist of only that child, of that child with her or his own children, or of a group of people. Without the resources of the conventional household, a child-headed household is more vulnerable and a source of potential victimization.
Child Labor for the Child’s Own Expenses Most children receive the financial support of a parent or caretaker; thus, the child’s income may be used solely for the child’s own entertainment. For example, in the USA, some children do childcare or lawn work to earn spending money.
Child Labor as Income for the Household or Caretaker The head of the household makes the decisions about time allocation of the household’s members. Children
Child and Adolescent Labor
C
in the household are assigned tasks based upon the adult’s perception of the worth of the child’s time. For instance, an adult may take a wage-earning job in the community while a child is given the task of attending school or of caring for other children, cooking, and cleaning in the household. Some children are employed to pay off family debts. This type of labor is called debt bondage or bonded labor. Often the employment agreements are vague. The child may be indentured to the employer for many years. There is evidence of female children being bonded labor for fetish priests. In this case, the children become the property of the priests and are used mainly for temple prostitution.
In addition, the child may be more easily trained in certain job aspects than the adult.
Child Labor as a Complement to or Substitute for Adult Labor
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing
Some employers prefer child labor rather than the labor of adults. Reasons for this choice include the available supply of adult labor, the job tasks that employers feel are best done by children, or the fact that children are more malleable than adults. Child labor can either complement or substitute for adult labor.
Agriculture
Child Labor as a Complement to Adult Labor Given the choice, adults will avoid boring, distasteful, or dangerous jobs. They have the resources and contacts to find the highest paying jobs and are able to migrate to gain employment in better situations. Adults have a higher skill level than children due to experience and, perhaps, education. In many countries, children fill some of the low-skilled, repetitious jobs. In this way, child labor complements adult labor as both low-skilled and higher-skilled labor positions are filled.
Child Labor as a Substitute for Adult Labor As a substitute, the child can often be hired at lower wages than an adult. Employers who have some immunity to labor laws may hire children at low wages (or use them as slave labor with no pay) to decrease their costs. Instead of lowering the quality of a product, such as a rug, the employer may cut the production cost by hiring children instead of adults. In this way, the employer has the advantage of a cheaper workforce. This can lead to further official unemployment.
387
Types of Child Labor There are many sources that list the types of employment of children and countries where this child labor can be found. Some of these include the ILO’s IPEC, US Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs, and many nongovernment organizations (NGOs). Industries that employ children can be broken down into three main categories: agriculture, manufacturing, and services. The types of child labor discussed here are not a comprehensive listing.
Children in the agriculture industry are subjected to long work hours, chemicals, extreme temperatures, and many physical dangers. Children are involved in growing food or cash crops and raising animals. The US fruits and vegetable market and the market for oranges in Brazil employ an untold number of children. Seasonal migration makes the numbers hard to verify. Dairy farming and animal husbandry have been reported in countries like Brazil, Nicaragua, and Nepal. This work is often dangerous due to the size and lack of strength of children and their constant close proximity with large animals. Some growing of food crops and animals is for the sustenance of the child and household while other is for income to the child, household, or employer. Some of the cash crop industries using child labor include the cotton market of Egypt, tea harvesting in Argentina, Bangladesh, and Kenya, the cocoa market in the Ivory Coast, and the cut-flowers market in Colombia. This may be on-going employment or the children may migrate with their parents or caretakers to do seasonal agricultural work. In some areas, school schedules are set around harvesting schedules.
Forestry and Fishing Few studies separate forestry and fishing. Countries reported as having children working in forestry include the Philippines, India, and Nicaragua. Fishing industries that involve small-scale fishing operations often employ children. The child may catch, clean, or process
C
388
C
Child and Adolescent Labor
fish. Bangladesh, Thailand, and Tanzania’s fishing industries employ children.
Lawn Care Lawn care is a phenomenon of developed countries and high-wealth areas of developing countries. In the USA, children may do lawn care as an assigned household task or to earn spending money. Children may also be used in small-scale lawn care services organizations that maintain the lawns of customers.
Manufacturing While some manufacturing may be done for the benefit of the child or household (for example, clothing), the majority of manufacturing industries are solely for the purpose of income. This manufacturing includes activities such as extracting building materials, mining, and producing luxury items (such as cigarettes and fireworks) and crafts. Children are mainly used in manufacturing when an adult’s strength is not needed, when there are repetitious tasks to perform requiring minimal skills, and when the child’s size contributes to his or her productivity. The child’s manual dexterity can be beneficial to the making of small items.
Brick Making Brick making by children is reported in many countries including Guatemala, Turkey, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and Nepal. When the materials for making bricks are abundant, brick making operations can be set up cheaply. The low-skilled, repetitious task can be done easily by children.
Rock Breaking, Quarrying, Mining Children working in rock breaking have been reported in Nicaragua while quarrying is done by children in countries like Guatemala, Peru, and Tanzania. Child laborers can be found in many countries where there are natural deposits of precious or semiprecious stones or minerals. Children work in many types of mining, both above ground and below ground. In Colombia, children work in the gold mines, while in Zimbabwe the mining is in chrome. The Ivory Coast has diamonds and Colombia has emeralds, which may be extracted by children. Coal mining and carrying by children are done in Mongolia, the Philippines, and South Africa. In Kenya, children harvest salt.
Bidis (Cigarettes) The rolling of cigarettes called bidis (or beedies) requires minimal skills and is repetitious; children are often used in their production. Children in Bangladesh and India spend hours of every day in a crouched position rolling bidis. The Resource Centre for Tobacco Free India reports that 15–25% of bidi workers are children. Children as young as three are involved in bidi rolling.
Rug Making In May 2010, the furniture company IKEA validated claims that some of its manufactured products, such as rugs from India, were produced using child labor. Production in private homes makes it difficult to verify that child labor is not used in the creation of rugs.
Charcoal
Jewelry Making/Tool Making
Charcoal’s main use is for the smelting of steel, and thus the steel industry is the biggest consumer of charcoal. Some households use charcoal for cooking and heating. Trees are cut down, and the wood is burned to create charcoal. Child labor is used in the manufacture of charcoal in many countries including Brazil and El Salvador.
Because of their manual dexterity and the repetitious work, children may be involved in a variety of jewelrymaking activities. In addition, some children do electroplating of tools. There are many other crafts that are done by children because of the low skill level needed to perform the task. In some situations, children are physically abused if they do not meet quotas set by employers.
Construction Children are working in construction throughout the world. Whenever labor laws and their enforcement are lax and there is little oversight, companies can hire children to move materials and work on the construction site.
Clothes Manufacturing Some children work in sweatshops sewing clothing (such as the maquiladoras in Mexico) that ultimately arrives in stores in developed countries. These children may work with adults or in groups of other children.
Child and Adolescent Labor
Often the child’s physical development is at risk due to the long hours working at a sewing machine.
Services Household Labor In many countries, both in the developed and developing world, children (mainly females) are used for household labor. This work may include housekeeping, which involves cooking, cleaning, ironing, and gardening. Older children are often set to the task of minding younger children who are either relatives or unrelated. In countries where water is not immediately available, children spend many hours hauling water from distant places for household use. While on the surface, household labor seems like a safer form of child labor; one must remember that children in private households are also hidden from the public. They experience long hours of work, exposure to toxic chemicals, and carrying heavy loads. In many cases, household laborers experience insufficient food and accommodations as well as physical, mental, and often sexual abuse. (See also article in the Encyclopedia of Adolescence entitled ▶ Child Trafficking for Household Labor.)
Sexual Services The sexual exploitation of children for profit includes selling the child’s sexual services, trafficking children for sexual services, child sex tourism, and the use of children in pornography or sex shows. Child sex trafficking is when a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion of vulnerable children – exploiting their labor in the commercial sex market. (See also the essays in Encyclopedia of Adolescence entitled ▶ Sex Trafficking into the United States, ▶ Sex Trafficking Within the United States, ▶ Sex Trafficking Worldwide.)
Child Soldiers Children are participants in armed conflicts. Some children voluntarily join governmental and nongovernment military units while others are forced. These children become either child soldiers fighting directly in the conflict or are attached to the military units, performing activities such as cooking and sexual services. Studies note that the children escaping this attachment are often mentally and physically damaged.
C
389
Camel Jockeying Camel racing is a popular spectator sport in the Middle East. Officially, camel jockeys must weigh at least 100 lbs, but there are allegations that these restrictions are often ignored. There are reports that children are kept in slave-like conditions, mentally and physically abused, and often starved. The Ansar Burney Trust has been involved in rescuing and repatriating former camel jockeys with their families.
Drug Couriering, Begging, Stealing While officials may look closely at adults and older adolescents, they are less likely to suspect children. Children are more easily coerced than adults and are forced to do tasks that are offensive and dangerous. There are reports that children are being used in drug couriering in Mexico and Brazil. Forced begging has been cited in Finland and Senegal. The US Department of State Trafficking in Person’s Act lists Mauritania as a country with forced stealing.
Dangers Children are especially vulnerable to exploitation in the labor market due to their lack of resources and inferior mental and physical development. Orphans and other children without benevolent caretakers are at the mercy of individuals who perceive the children merely as a source of labor and income. In areas where epidemics or warfare have created huge orphan populations, the children may be seen as expendable, easily-replaced sources of labor. There are personal costs associated with child labor. When a child works, he or she has less opportunity to attend school, socialize, and rest. The more lax the child labor laws and their enforcement, the higher the probability that a child will be exposed to danger and exploitation. In many occupations, the child’s health is threatened by the chemicals used or the dangerous worksite. In occupations where the child works sideby-side with his or her family, physical development may be damaged by hours working in one position. When working for an unrelated person, the child is vulnerable to physical and mental abuse. In addition, children are highly susceptible to sexual abuse leading to trauma, disease, and unplanned childbirth. While international and national organizations collect general information on different forms of child labor, it is often the nongovernment organizations
C
390
C
Child and Adolescent Labor
that work directly with the child labor populations. Without a consistent system of data collection, there is a lack of reliable data on most forms of child labor. Sovereignty issues mean that labor laws are incongruous across national and sometimes regional borders. The ratification of international conventions allows some cohesion of child labor policy; however, enforcement of the conventions’ statues can be difficult. Policymakers need an understanding of not only the current forms of child labor, but also the effects of policy enforcement on the child laborers. When a labor population is pushed out of the legal labor market, an underground market may develop. Children who work openly in agriculture may become slave labor in foreign countries if they are forced to migrate to find work.
Conclusion While working can help to prepare a child for adulthood, child labor can be detrimental to the child’s physical and mental growth. The dangers inherent in child labor make the subject multi-faceted to include the many reasons children work and the occupations that are filled by child laborers. Informed child labor policymaking takes into account these diverse subjects as well as the outcomes of removing the children from those particular circumstances. While this essay does not provide a comprehensive listing of child labor categories, it provides a basis to begin researching child labor. Child labor exists in every country in the world today.
Cross-References ▶ Child Trafficking for Household Labor ▶ Fair Labor Standards Act
References Baland, J., & Robinson, J. (2000). Is child labor inefficient? Journal of Political Economy, 108(4), 663–679. Bales, K. (2007). Ending slavery: How we free today’s slaves. Berkeley: University of California Press. Basu, K. (1999). International labor standards and child labor. Challenge, 42(5), 80–93. Batstone, D. (2007). Not for sale: The return of the global slave trade – and how we can fight it. San Francisco: HarperCollins. Becker, G. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bhargava, A., & Bigombe, B. (2003). Public policies and the orphans of AIDS in Africa. British Medical Journal, 326(7403), 1387–1389. Bollinger, L., Stover, J., & Nalo, D. (1999). The economic impact of AIDS in Kenya. Working paper for The Policy Project, The Futures Group International. Brown, D. K., Deardorff, A. V., & Stern, R. M. (2001). U.S. trade and other policy options and programs to deter foreign exploitation of child labor. In M. Blomstrom & L. Goldberg (Eds.), Topics in empirical international economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CIA Factbook. (2006). Kenya. Retrieved December 2006, from www. cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ke.html Deininger, K., Garcia, M., & Subbarao, K. (2003). AIDS-induced orphanhood as a systematic shock: magnitude, impact, and program interventions in Africa. World Development, 31(7), 1201–1220. Dessy, S., & Knowles, J. (2001). Why is child labor illegal? Working paper, Penn Institute for Economic Research, University of Pennsylvania. Emerson, P., & Portela, A. (2001). Bargaining over sons and daughter: child labor, school attendance and intra-household gender bias in Brazil. Working paper, Western Economics Association International Annual Meetings. End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography, and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Exploitation. (1996). Europe and North America regional profile. First World Congress against the sexual exploitation of children. Stockholm, Sweden: Author. Fan, C. S. (2004). Relative wage, child labor and human capital. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), 687–700. Fassa, A. G. (2003, June). Health benefits of eliminating child labour: Research paper in conjunction with the ILO-IPEC Study on the Costs and Benefits of the Elimination of Child Labour. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour, 1–16. Foster, G. (2000). The capacity of the extended family safety net for orphans in Africa. Psychology, 5(1), 55–62. Grootaert, C. (1999). Child labor in Coˆte d’Ivoire: Incidence and determinants. The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper Series: 1905. Guarcello, L., Lyon, S., Rosati, F., & Valdivia, C. (2004). The influence of orphanhood on children’s schooling and labour: Evidence from Sub Saharan Africa. UCW Working Paper. Heady, C. (2003). The effect of child labor on learning achievement. World Development, 31(2), 385–398. International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). (2002). Worst forms of child labour: Article 3 of ILO Convention 182. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization. Retrieved on May 24, 2010 at http://www.ilo.org/ ipec/facts/WorstFormsofChildLabour/lang–en/index.htm Kanbur, R., & Haddad, L. (1994). Are better off households more unequal or less unequal? Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 445–458. Kielburger, C., & Major, K. (1998). Free the children: A young man fights against child labor and proves that children can change the world. New York: HarperCollins.
Child Neglect King, G., & Clift, E. (2004). Woman, child for sale: The new slave trade in the 21st century. New York: Chamberlain Bros. Maitra, P., & Ray, R. (2002). The joint estimation of child participation in schooling and employment: comparative evidence from three continents. Oxford Development Studies, 30(1), 41–62. Majumdar, M. (2001). Child labour as a human security problem: evidence from India. Oxford Development Studies, 29(3), 279–304. Matshalaga, N. R., & Powell, G. (2002). Mass orphanhood in the era of HIV/AIDS. British Medical Journal, 324(7331), 185–186. Nyambedha, E., Wandibba, S., & Aagaard-Hansen, J. (2003). Changing patterns of orphan care in western Africa. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 301–311. Nzioka, C. (2000, January). The social meanings of death from HIV/AIDS: An African interpretative view. Culture, Health & Sexuality 2(1), 1–14. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ 2089196635-67103881/titledb=allcontent=t713693164tab= issueslistbranches=2-v2 Patterson, A. (2003). AIDS, orphans, and the future of democracy in Africa. In W. S. Howard (Ed.), The children of Africa confront AIDS: From vulnerability to possibility (Singhal, A). Chicago: Ohio University Press. Phiri, S., & Webb, D. (2002). The impact of HIV/AIDS on orphans and programme and policy responses. In G. A. Cornia (Ed.), AIDS, public policy and child well-being. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Portner, C. (2001). Children as insurance. Journal of Population Economics, 14, 119–136. Ranjan, P. (2001). Credit constraints and the phenomenon of child labor. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 81–102. Ravallion, M., & Wodon, Q. (1999). Does child labor displace schooling? Evidence on Behavioral Responses to an Enrollment Subsidy. Working paper, World Bank. Rogers, C., & Swinnerton, K. (2000). Inequality, productivity, and child labor: Theory and evidence. Working paper. Sengendo, J., & Nambi, J. (1997). The psychological effect of orphanhood: a study of orphans in Rakai district. Health Transition Review, 7(Supplement), 105–124. Statistical Information and Monitoring Programme on Child Labor (SIMPOC). (1998). Kenya. Retrieved on November 4, 2006 from http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/ipec/simpoc/ microdata/index.htm Swinnerton, K., & Rogers, C. (2000). A theory of exploitative child labor. Working paper. U.S. Agency for International Development. (2003, September). USAID Project Profiles: Children affected by HIV/AIDS (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development. Umbima, K. J. (1991). Regulating foster care services: the Kenyan situation. Child Welfare, 70(2), 169–174. UNAIDS, UNICEF, & USAID. (2004, July) Children on the brink 2004: A joint report of new orphan estimates and a framework for action. Weiner, M. (1991). The child and the state in India: Child labor and education policy in comparative perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
C
Wheaton, E. (2005). Report on the Statistical Information and Monitoring Programme on Child Labour (SIMPOC) Data for Kenya. U.S. Department of Labor. Wheaton, E. M. (2007, November). The effects of intra-family relationships on child labor outcomes in Kenya. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Zimmerman, F. (2002). Cinderella goes to school: the effects of child fostering on school enrollment in South Africa. The Journal of Human Resources, 38(3), 557–590.
Child Neglect CONSTANCE L. CHAPPLE1, LORETTA E. BASS1, M. NICOLE WAREHIME2 1 Department of Sociology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA 2 Department of Sociology, Oklahoma Baptist University, University Shawnee, OK, USA
Overview Overview of the Prevalence of Neglect Child neglect stands out as the most common type of child maltreatment (Depanfilis 2006). Indeed, national victimization data show that 59% of child victims of maltreatment experienced neglect, compared with 13.1% who were victims of multiple maltreatments, 10.8% who were physically abused, 7.6% who were sexually abused, 4.2% who were psychologically maltreated, and less than 1% who were medically neglected. Child neglect may be defined as a parent’s or caretaker’s failure to provide for a child’s basic needs (Polonko 2007). However, there is a lack of agreement on an operational definition of neglect within the scholarly literature across disciplines and among professionals working in different areas. An added complexity to defining child neglect is that the definition of neglect differs by age and the developmental level of the child. Therefore, outlining a consistent set of behaviors that exemplify neglect is no easy task. Child neglect is often mentioned in tandem with child abuse, yet it is less likely to be acknowledged and reported, as well as less likely to be the focus of scholarly research (Erickson and Egeland 2002). This is unsettling, because research assessing the relative
391
C
392
C
Child Neglect
negative impact of neglect compared with physical and sexual abuse finds that neglect may actually be more detrimental to a child’s early brain development (Garbarino and Collins 1999). However, this difference in attention to neglect relative to abuse may be attributed to the difficulty in defining neglect coupled with the active, violent nature of child abuse (e.g., its consequences are more readily apparent in the form of physical marks and injury by outsiders). Finally, many consider child neglect to be an act of “omission” rather than “commission,” which makes determining criminal intent and prosecution difficult (Erickson and Egeland 2002).
Demographic Profile Individual, household, and societal factors profile the types of children who are likely to be affected by neglect. At the individual level, child neglect may be characterized as more likely for girls, younger children, and traditionally disadvantaged minority groups (Gaudiosi 2009). National data aggregated from state Child Protective Services agencies indicates that girls are slightly more likely than boys to be among reported victims of abuse and neglect, as 51.5% of abuse and neglect victims are girls compared with 48.2% being boys (Gaudiosi 2009). Also, children at older ages are less likely to be among the reported cases of neglect. While children under four represent 36.9% of all child neglect cases, the percent decreases with age to 24.3% who are 4–7 years old, 17.9% who are 8–11 years old, 15.2% who are 12–15 years old, and just 5% among those who are 16–17 years old (Gaudiosi 2009). Additionally, Hispanic and Black minority groups have a higher incidence of officially recorded neglect than the other groups in the US population. While Blacks comprise 12% of the general population, Black children represent 21.2% of all officially recorded child neglect cases. Similarly, Hispanics comprise 13% of the general population, yet represent 21.5% of all reported child neglect cases (Gaudiosi 2009). At the household level, low income is the major predictor of child neglect (Barnett et al. 2005). Other research (Charlow 2001; Lee and George 1999) differentiates child neglect from other types of child maltreatment (i.e., physical and sexual abuse) in that child neglect is most directly associated with poverty. Poverty is then associated with other factors at the individual level, such as parental stress, and at the community
level, such as lack of social support, which may also be associated with child neglect. In this way, children who live in low-income families find themselves at the greatest risk because they are generally situated within low-income neighborhoods with safety issues and a general lack of community social support. While it is not a surprise that a parent represents 66.1% of all perpetrators of neglect, as parents are generally the legal and custodial guardians of children, it is striking that it is generally the mother who is held responsible by the courts in cases of child neglect (Gaudiosi 2009). This statistic holds for child neglect resulting in fatality, too, as mothers are held responsible in a majority of the deaths due to child neglect (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect 1995). Mothers, of course, are most likely to be the caretakers of small children and thus, would disproportionately be more likely to neglect the children who are in their charge. As such, much of the literature on child neglect has focused on mothers, their behavior, and their social location.
Types of Neglect Child neglect may be grouped into categories of physical neglect, medical neglect, educational neglect, supervision neglect, emotional neglect, and prenatal neglect. Physical neglect refers to a situation in which a caretaker fails to provide a child sufficient food, clothing, and shelter. Physical neglect may also include inadequate hygiene, driving while drunk, or leaving a child in a car unintended. Medical neglect refers to a caretaker failing to provide adequate or timely health care, while educational or cognitive neglect refers to the failure to provide acceptable levels of stimulation and involvement in child’s schooling (e.g., failure to enroll a child or causing a child to miss school). Supervision or environmental neglect refers to a caretaker failing to provide enough monitoring of the child’s environment and activities (i.e., safe play areas) within it. Emotional neglect refers to a caretaker not providing adequate emotional responsiveness, social support, and nurturing. Additionally, prenatal neglect refers to a pregnant caretaker exposing or addicting a newborn to drugs or alcohol as well as a caretaker’s failure to obtain proper prenatal care (Polonko 2007). Professionals in the field often differentiate between chronic neglect, for example extended malnourishment,
Child Neglect
or acute neglect, for example when a toddler is left unsupervised and ingests poison. Social work professionals also distinguish three categories of neglect severity, namely mild neglect (e.g., caretaker fails to put child in car safety seat), moderate neglect (e.g., a child is consistently inappropriately dressed) and severe neglect (e.g., a child is not eating regularly) (Depanfilis 2006). In this way, it is not only the type of neglect but the nature and severity of neglect that become salient to define child neglect and determine what form of and if an intervention should take place. Finally, child maltreatment researchers have long noted that types of maltreatment overlap (Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect 1993). Research on child fatalities highlights the overlap between neglect as part of a web of maltreatment that many children experience. Indeed, 35.2% of child fatalities are caused by multiple forms of maltreatment compared with lower proportions of child fatalities due to neglect only (34.1%) and physical abuse only (26.4%) (Children’s Bureau/ ACYF 2007). Child maltreatment researchers utilizing an ecodevelopmental theoretical framework have long acknowledged that social context influences child maltreatment (Garbarino and Sherman 1980; Coulton et al. 1999; Stouthamer-Loeber et al. 2002) and that social context effects the adverse consequences that maltreated children face (Korbin 2003). According to research on the predictors of child maltreatment, maltreatment is more likely among poor, young, less educated mothers (Third National Incidence Study; Sedlak and Broadhurst 1996; Coulton et al. 1995) and is more likely to occur in neighborhoods with high levels of crime or social disorganization (Coulton et al. 1995; Garbarino and Crouter 1978). In particular, maltreating mothers are more likely than nonmaltreating mothers to indicate that their community is unsafe or disorganized (Korbin 2003). They are also less likely to perceive social support within their neighborhood and are more likely to report social isolation or shallow social network ties (Scannapieco and Connell-Carrick 2002; Coulton et al. 1993). Eco-developmental researchers in child maltreatment have moved away from traditional, macro-level measures of social structure and social organization to measure the social context of child maltreatment. Instead, researchers are frequently using concepts such as social cohesion or collective efficacy to measure
C
not just how communities are structured but, rather how they function (Korbin 2003). Unfortunately, the same social processes that undermine community collective efficacy (e.g., poverty, homelessness, joblessness, single parenthood, and crime) also contribute to child maltreatment (Sampson et al. 1999; Coulton et al. 1995; Garbarino and Crouter 1978). While child maltreatment researchers have often employed the concept of collective efficacy in their research, it is unclear whether community context ameliorates or exacerbates neglectful parenting. It is also unknown whether community processes affect the outcomes of neglected children differently than other maltreated children as child neglect is notoriously difficult to detect, especially when it occurs at nonlife threatening levels (Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect 1993). Therefore, it may be more difficult for community members to notice and intervene in cases of child neglect, although these children may benefit greatly from communal supervision and emotional investment.
Neglect and Adverse Developmental Outcomes Delinquency and Substance Use Research on child neglect and delinquency (Lemmon 1999; Stouthamer-Loeber et al. 2002; Weiler et al. 1996; Zingraff et al. 1993), suggests that neglected children are often as likely to be involved in delinquency as other maltreated children (Lemmon 1999). In terms of moderators of the relationship between maltreatment and delinquency, research has found that maltreatment was tied to poor social controls (Brezina 1998; Herrenkohl et al. 2003) and that the relationship between child maltreatment and delinquency was stronger for children in non-intact homes. Child neglect and its effect on delinquency, however, is rarely assessed independent of other types of child maltreatment, and it is difficult to discern to what extent child neglect impairs adolescent development and increases the likelihood of delinquency. Additionally, research on child neglect and delinquency has been limited primarily to research on officially recorded neglected children (Lemmon 1999; Stouthamer-Loeber et al. 2002; Weiler et al. 1996; Zingraff et al. 1993), leaving open questions concerning the effects of neglect for children who are not severely neglected or escape state notice. Developmental
393
C
394
C
Child Neglect
research on neglect in early childhood suggests that children who are neglected in the preschool years have particularly adverse developmental outcomes in childhood and adolescence (Hildyard and Wolfe 2002; Scannapieco and Connell-Carrick 2002). As the bulk of the research on child neglect combines measures of neglect with other measures of maltreatment, we review the general child maltreatment and delinquency literature below. Research also suggests that delinquency varies by types of maltreatment. Although the trend is that types of maltreatment generally overlap (e.g., neglected children are often physically abused), research that does distinguish between types of maltreatment finds that physically abused and/or neglected children are often the most seriously delinquent (Smith and Thornberry 1995; Zingraff et al. 1993). Researchers have investigated potential explanations for the connection between maltreatment and delinquency. They have found that maltreatment was tied to poor social controls (Brezina 1998; Herrenkohl et al. 2003), poor emotional regulation (Maughan and Cicchetti 2002), and the acquisition of deviant values (Brezina 1998; Herrenkohl et al. 2003). Additionally, the relationship between child maltreatment and delinquency was stronger for children in non-intact homes (StouthamerLoeber et al. 2002) and the relationship was mediated by attachment to mother (Benda and Corwyn 2002), good school performance (Zingraff et al. 1994), and family structure (Zingraff et al. 1993). Although theorists and researchers have often suggested that experiences with maltreatment in childhood adversely affect child and adolescent development (Egeland et al. 2002; Hildyard and Wolfe 2002), little research has been done to corroborate this assertion with longitudinal data into adolescence. To fully understand the long-term consequences of maltreatment, we need to examine how maltreatment affects development and delinquency in adolescence.
Child Neglect and Poor Peer Relations Parents play a key role in helping children form positive relationships with peers (Bolger and Patterson 2001) and positive peer relations are important because they contribute to competence, advancement of social skills, and help aid in the development of forming positive relations with others (Mueller and Silverman 1989). Maltreated children often have problems with peer
relations because they tend to be more aggressive and socially withdrawn (Bolger and Patterson 2001; De Paul and Arruabarrena 1995; Mueller and Silverman 1989) and children displaying these characteristics are more likely to be rejected by their peers (cf. Bolger and Patterson 2001; Rubin et al. 1990). Numerous studies have found that aggressive behavior leads to unpopularity of maltreated children as well as rejection by normal peer groups (Bolger and Patterson 2001; Coie et al. 1991; Little and Garber 1995; Patterson et al. 1984). Rejection by pro-social peers is problematic given that it is a major risk factor for poor adjustment and has been associated with delinquency at later developmental stages (Bolger and Patterson 2001; Coie and Cillessen 1993; Patterson et al. 1989). Despite the significant increase in emotional and physical neglect in recent years (Third National Incidence Study, Sedlak and Broadhurst 1996), child neglect has received limited attention in the literature (Crouch and Milner 1993; De Paul and Arruabarrena 1995). The few studies of neglect that do exist however, have found a positive link between neglect and peer rejection (Bolger and Patterson 2001; Bolger et al. 1998; De Paul and Arruabarrena 1995). Among a representative community sample of maltreated and non-maltreated children, Bolger and Patterson (2001) found that chronic maltreatment (which included neglect) was associated with a higher risk of rejection by peers. The duration of maltreatment also positively influenced the child being rejected by peers over time. Both neglected and physically abused children had more problems establishing relations with peers and both groups had higher rates of delinquent behaviors compared to their non-abused counterparts (De Paul and Arruabarrena 1995). Overall, research tends to find that children who are subjected to all forms of maltreatment have poorer outcomes compared to nonmaltreated children (Manly et al. 1994) and as a result, are likely to have unsuccessful encounters with peers. Additionally, Bolger et al. (1998) argue that the physical environments of neglectful families (e.g., homes being extremely dirty) may discourage children from inviting friends over, which may contribute to a lack of friends among neglected children. Those children who have difficulties establishing and maintaining relationships with pro-social peers are more are at a greater risk of becoming delinquent later in life (De Paul and Arruabarrena 1995).
Child Neglect
Child Neglect and Academic Outcomes Although research on child maltreatment and academic outcomes is limited, and often research in this area has utilized small, nonrepresentative samples, research indicates that maltreated children often do more poorly in school than non-maltreated children. Abused and/or neglected children and youths have lower IQ, lower grades (Leiter and Johnsen 1994; Eckenrode et al. 1995; Kendall-Tackett and Eckenrode 1996), poorer reading and other test scores (Kinard 2001a, b; Eckenrode et al. 1995), lower school expectations, higher grade repetitions or drop-out (Eckenrode et al. 1993; Thornberry et al. 2001), and greater disciplinary problems (Kendall-Tackett and Eckenrode 1996) than non-maltreated youths. Research has also indicated that neglected children do as poorly as abused children or have worse academic outcomes (Kinard 2001a; Kendall-Tackett and Eckenrode 1996). Research indicates that chronically maltreated children or maltreatment in late childhood and into adolescence has a particularly adverse effect on school adjustment (Thornberry et al. 2001). In a similar vein, found that adolescents who were neglected as young children were significantly more likely to be expelled and to receive remedial education.
Child Neglect and SocialPsychological Outcomes Children with a history of child maltreatment report higher rates of adverse social-psychological effects compared to children without child maltreatment in their past. Researchers have established that children who experienced child maltreatment exhibit higher rates of anxiety and depression in their adolescent years (Erickson and Egeland 2002). In more detail, victims of child neglect display higher rates of anxiety and depression compared to victims of other types of child maltreatment (i.e., physical, sexual, and psychological). Katz (1992) supports these findings arguing that victims of child neglect are more likely to have sociopsychological disorders such as anxiety and depression, and the most notable differences were developed by junior high school. Despite establishing a peer support system, victims of child neglect remain at a higher risk for depression compared to children who were not victims. This illustrates the idea that the depression is more likely linked
C
to the victimization of child neglect rather than “typical” adolescent transition and angst. Although reports indicate neglected children are less likely to establish peer relationships, possibly due to the embarrassment of the home condition, of those who do develop friendships, they remain struggling with episodes of depression. To further develop this argument Sabatelli and Anderson (1991) found that the perceived level of support of the peer system affected the range of the depression. Generally, infants who are neglected, display developmental delays at each stage of their life. Those who become more depressed are more likely to have been neglected children, but received proper support during infancy. But, as they developed, their mothers became more and more neglectful. Those who struggle with anxiety can be associated with the quality of parent–infant attachment based on various testing instruments. The more anxious children have an increased likelihood of subsequent development issues. Neglected children report higher rates of anxiety compared to non-neglected children (Erickson and Egeland 2002).
Conclusions and Implications Nearly one million American children are confirmed victims of child maltreatment each year in the USA (Wang and Holton 2007). Many developmental consequences of maltreatment as noted in earlier sections of this report are evident immediately and interventions can be put into place. There are also pervasive and long-lasting effects on children, their families, their neighborhoods and communities, and society in general. In this way, there is often a spillover effect from children’s circumstances within a household to the neighborhood and community levels. The effects of this maltreatment are known to extend beyond childhood and into adolescence and adulthood (Daro 1988), which impacts not only one victim’s lifetime productivity but also the life chances of that victim’s offspring. A recent economic impact study (Wang and Holton 2007) found the annual cost of child maltreatment is $103.8 billion and places costs into two categories, direct costs associated with the immediate needs of children who are abused and neglected, and indirect costs associated with longer-term and subsequent effects of child maltreatment. Categories of direct costs flowing into the cost algorithm include child
395
C
396
C
Child Neglect
welfare services, hospitalization, mental health care, and law enforcement. Categories of indirect costs include special education, juvenile delinquency, mental health and health care, the adult criminal justice system, and lost productivity to society. Research has shown that child neglect has pernicious, negative effects into adolescence and perhaps into adulthood. Children who were neglected are significantly more likely to be serious delinquents, face severe educational challenges, exhibit various mental health issues, and often report disorder peer relationships. As neglect is notoriously difficult to detect at noncritical levels, it requires a comprehensive approach to detecting and addressing child neglect. Often maltreating parents are just as in need of services as are their children. Therefore, coordinated efforts to address both the needs of the family and the child are suggested.
References Barnett, O. W., Miller-Perrin, C. L., Perrin, R. (2005). Child neglect. In Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction (2nd edn, pp. 126–150, chapter 5). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). The effect of abuse in childhood and in adolescence on violence among adolescents. Youth and Society, 33, 339–365. Bolger, K. E., & Patterson, C. J. (2001). Developmental pathways from child maltreatment to peer rejection. Child Development, 72, 549–568. Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer relationships and self-esteem among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69, 1171–1197. Brezina, T. (1998). Adolescent maltreatment and delinquency: The question of intervening processes. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 71–99. Charlow, A. (2001). Race, poverty, and neglect. William Mitchell Law Review, 28(2), 763–790. Children’s Bureau/ACYF. (2007). Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities: Statistics and Interventions. Child Welfare Information Gateway. Washington, DC: Children’s Bureau/ACYF. http://dc.mandated reporter.org/pages/docs/Child-Abuse-and-Neglect-Fatalities.pdf Coie, J. D., & Cillessen, A. H. (1993). Peer rejection: Origins and effects on children’s development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 89–92. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Terry, R., & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 62, 812–826. Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J. E., Marilyn, Su, & Chow, J. (1995). Community level factors and child maltreatment rates. Child Development, 66, 1262–1276. Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J. E., & Marilyn, Su. (1999). Neighborhoods and child maltreatment: A multi-level study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 1019–1040.
Crouch, J. L., & Milner, J. S. (1993). Effects of child neglect on children. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 49–65. Daro, D. (1988). Confronting child abuse: Rsearch for effective program design. New York: Free Press. De Paul, J., & Arruabarrena, M. I. (1995). Behavior problems in school-aged physically abused and neglected children in Spain. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 409–418. Depanfilis, D. (2006). Child Maltreatment 2004 [On-line]. Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ cb/pubs/cm04/index.htm Eckenrode, J., Laird, M., & Doris, J. (1993). School performance and disciplinary problems among abused and neglected children. Developmental Psychology, 29, 53–62. Eckenrode, J., Rowe, E., Laird, M., & Brathwaite, J. (1995). Mobility as a mediator of the effects of child maltreatment on academic performance. Child Development, 66, 1130–1142. Egeland, B., Yates, T., Appleyard, K., & van Dulmen, M. (2002). The Long-Term consequences of maltreatment in the early years: A developmental pathway model to antisocial behavior. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 5, 249–260. Erickson, M. F., & Egeland, B. (2002). Child neglect. In J. E. B. Myers, L. Berliner, J. Briere, C. T. Hendrix, C. Jenny, & T. A. Reid (Eds.), The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Garbarino, J., & Collins, C. C. (1999). Child neglect: The family with a hole in the middle. In H. Dubowitz (Ed.), Neglected children: Research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–23). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Garbarino, J., & Crouter, A. (1978). Defining the community context for parent-child relations: The correlates of child maltreatment. Child Development, 49, 604–616. Garbarino, J., & Sherman, D. (1980). High-risk neighborhoods and high-risk families: The human ecology of child maltreatment. Child Development, 51, 188–198. Gaudiosi, J. (2009). Child maltreatment 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009). http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/ stats_research/ index.htm#can Herrenkohl, T. I., Huang, Bu, Tajima, E. A., & Whitney, S. D. (2003). Examining the link between child abuse and youth violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1189–1208. Hildyard, K. L., & Wolfe, D. A. (2002). Child neglect: Developmental issues and outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 679–695. Kendall-Tackett, K. A., & Eckenrode, J. (1996). The effects of neglect on academic achievement and disciplinary problems: developmental perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 161–169. Kinard, E. M. (2001a). Characteristics of maltreatment experience and academic functioning among maltreated children. Violence and Victims, 16, 323–337. Kinard, E. M. (2001b). Perceived and actual academic competence in maltreated children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 33–45. Korbin, J. E. (2003). Neighborhood and community connectedness in child maltreatment research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 137–140.
Child Savers Lee, B. J., & George, M. (1999). Poverty, early childbearing, and child maltreatment: A multinomial analysis. Child & Youth Services Review, 21(9–10), 755–768. Leiter, J., & Johnsen, M. C. (1994). Child maltreatment and school performance. American Journal of Education, 102, 154–189. Lemmon, J. H. (1999). How child maltreatment affects dimensions of juvenile delinquency in a cohort of low-income urban youths. Justice Quarterly, 16, 357–376. Manly, J. T., Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1994). The impact of subtype, frequency, chronicity, and severity of child maltreatment on social competence and behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 121–143. Maughan, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Impact of child maltreatment and interadult violence on children’s emotion regulation abilities and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73, 1525–1542. Mueller, E., & Silverman, N. (1989). Peer relations in maltreated children. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 529–578). New York: Cambridge University Press. Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Bank, L. (1984). Family interaction: A process model of deviancy training. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 253–267. Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. The American Psychologist, 44, 329–335. Polonko, K. (2007). Child abuse. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Reference Online. 29 July 2009. http://www.sociologyencyclopedia. com/subscriber/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g97814 051243319_ss1–26 Rubin, K. H., LeMare, L. J., & Lollis, S. (1990). Social withdrawal in childhood: Developmental pathways to peer rejection. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 217–249). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633–660. Scannapieco, M., & Connell-Carrick, K. (2002). Focus on the first years: An eco-developmental assessment of child neglect for children 0 to 3 years of age. Children and Youth Services Review, 24, 601–621. Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). Third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Smith, C., & Thornberry, T. P. (1995). The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33, 451–479. Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Wei, E. H., Lynn Homish, D., & Loeber, R. (2002). Which family and demographic factors are related to both maltreatment and persistent serious juvenile delinquency? Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 5, 261–272. Thornberry, T. P., Ireland, T. O., & Smith, C. A. (2001). The importance of timing: The varying impact of childhood and adolescent
C
maltreatment on multiple problem outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 957–979. U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A nation’s shame: Fatal child abuse and neglect in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://ican-ncfr.org/ documents/Nations-Shame.pdf Wang, C-T., & Holton J. (2007). Total estimated cost of child abuse and neglect in the United States. Chicago: Prevent Child Abuse America. http://www.preventchildabuse.org/about_us/ media_releases/pcaa_pew_economic_impact_study_final.pdf Weiler, B. L., & Widom, C. S. (1996). Psychopathy and violent behavior in abused and neglected young adults. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 6, 253–271. Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Myers, K. A., & Johnsen, M. C. (1993). Child maltreatment and youthful problem behavior. Criminology, 31, 173–202. Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Johnsen, M. C., & Myers, K. A. (1994). The mediating effect of good school performance on the maltreatment-delinquency relationship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 62–91.
Child Savers ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
“Child savers” refers to a group of reformers who, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, initiated a movement that resulted in important social reforms in the manner society and social institutions treated youth (Platt 1977). Unlike earlier movements, this one included the widespread recognition of the need for significant social, political, and economic reforms. It championed the need to establish special institutions targeting youth considered wayward, delinquent, or criminal. Among the most notable achievements attributed to this movement is the establishment of the juvenile court, although the movement also highly influenced the burgeoning development of public schools as well as child protection systems and laws supporting them (e.g., child labor laws, compulsory school attendance laws, and child protection laws) (see Levesque 1995). The massive amount of legislation relating to youth reflected the prevailing vision that children were different from adults and in need of protection to ensure their development as productive and responsible members of society.
397
C
398
C
Child Savers
How the child saving movement contributed to juvenile justice reforms illustrates well child savers’ images of youth and society’s role in fostering them. A central tenet of the child saving movement was that environments produce crime and deviance, a view that set the stage for delinquent youth to be envisioned as products of corrupt environments rather than as individuals with innate proclivities to crime and criminality. The view that exposing youth to the exploitative and corrupt nature of adult correctional systems would exacerbate their condition led to the call to separate adolescent offenders from adults. This view of environmental influences on offenders was coupled with the notion that youth were still developing and that society had the responsibility to shape development in positive and constructive ways. This contributed to the acknowledgment that juveniles needed to be placed in settings that were rehabilitative, which prompted the creation of not only a separate justice system but also a system devoted to treating and rehabilitating young offenders (Ullman 2000). These views of youth and of the power of social influences certainly were not new, but it is difficult to play down how they worked together, spurred by reformers, at a time when prominent members of society were ready to embrace them and social conditions were sufficiently ripe for their broad acceptance. Although the child saving movement tends to be framed in positive and benevolent terms, historians have revealed other impulses (see Platt 1977). Some view child savers’ proposals as rooted in earlier times by noting that the previous century did have reformers who viewed children as in need of protection from parents and in need of mechanisms to condemn and punish parents and remove children from their abusive families. Historians also note that child saving reformers sought to preserve the existing class system and the distribution of wealth, which, in general, favored them given that reformers associated with the movement were middle-class women and professional groups who relied on the political and financial support of ruling elites to implement their visions of how youth should be treated. Commentators also have noted that the reform effort was not as benevolent as imaged to the extent that reforms recommended increased institutionalization as a means to rehabilitate youth from corrupting influences and showed little concern for protecting children’s significant familial,
ethnic, religious, and other social ties. Indeed, child saving reformers in large Eastern cities, for example, urged immigrant youth from urban areas to submit to being placed with farm families in the mid-western United States, a well-recognized effort described as Orphan Trains (see Levesque 1995). Also troublesome is the reality that youth who were institutionalized generally were subjected to harsh conditions, such as hard labor and severe discipline. Historians also note pervasive class, racial, and gender biases. American Indians, for example, were sent to boarding schools and submitted to corporal punishment as a mean to strip them of their cultural heritage (see Morrisette 1994). In addition, girls’ alleged immoral conduct has been noted as the center of the progressives’ concerns in establishing the juvenile court, which gained broad discretion and jurisdiction over an array of “status offenses,” such as “sexual immorality” that otherwise would have been ignored by the adult criminal justice system (Chesney-Lind 1999). These criticisms illustrated how efforts to assist youth were fraught with biases and the reality that social change always involves a mixture of complex impulses that, indeed, currently mark systems meant to assist youth. Legally, perhaps the most problematic aspect of reforms was the blurred distinctions made between dependent youth, delinquent youth, and status offenders (with the latter offense being a new offense created by this movement). As a result of these reforms, the juvenile court gained jurisdiction over three broad categories of offenses: the delinquent (for acts committed by youth that would be a crime if committed by an adult), the dependent (for being deemed abused or neglected and in need of protection from an unfit parent), and the status offender (for acts constituting an offense that would not be a crime if committed by an adult). The problematic result of these broad categories was that youth with different needs and circumstances could be treated similarly and, in reality, not in rehabilitative ways. For youth alleged to be delinquent, for example, their treatment took precedence over determinations of guilt, retribution, and culpability, which led to the broad endorsement of the parens patriae doctrine in which the state acts as guardian of its youth in need (see Ullman 2000). To best serve youth, judges were given broad flexibility and discretion to address problem behavior; the juvenile court system was envisioned as fostering benign, nonpunitive, and
Child Sexual Abuse
therapeutic agencies. The needed discretion meant a reduction in due process protections and a focus on non-adversarial resolutions of claims. It was this failure to recognize the due process needs of youth that led to the demise of much of the juvenile court as it had been envisioned. In Kent v. United States (1966), the Court observed that children involved in juvenile court received the worst of both worlds – they neither received the protections accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and rehabilitation postulated for youth. A year later, In re Gault (1967) bluntly recognized the disjunctions between the theory and the practice of rehabilitation and the need for procedural safeguards like those from criminal proceedings; and it embarked on a systematic overhaul of the due process rights accorded to youth in juvenile courts. These developments were part of a broader civil rights movement that included, among other reforms, a broad increase in due process protections against the state. Even this broad overhaul, however, was limited in that the recognized due process protections related to youth in delinquency proceeding who could be institutionalized; the expansive reforms have yet to result in parallel developments in, for example, dependency cases (see Levesque 2008). As the movement sought to assist a broader range of youth, then, it blurred important distinctions and contributed to the development of systems that, to this day, evince difficulty addressing youths’ different needs and recognizing youths’ rights in systems presumed to be protecting them from others and themselves. The child savers were part of a period of great change in the United States – the Progressive Era – that took place in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Child savers sought to rid society of many of its problems, and they helped enact reforms, including impressive laws, to address youths’ needs. These reforms were momentous and not only changed the legal systems’ response to adolescents but also actually helped to shape the period of adolescence itself as it contributed to the creation of schools, protections from labor that would help send them to school, the creation of systems that would be aimed at addressing their peculiar needs, and to eventual reforms that would help define them as individuals with what has been seen as the beginning of their own, independent rights that they could exercise against others (both their parents, such as in child welfare systems, and the state, such as in juvenile justice
C
399
and educational systems) (see Levesque 2000). These developments make it difficult to play down the significance of child savers in the current understanding of the adolescent period.
References Chesney-Lind, M. (1999). Challenging girls’ invisibility in juvenile court. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 564, 185–202. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). Levesque, R. J. R. (1995). The failures of foster care reform: Revolutionizing the most radical blueprint. Maryland Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 6, 1–35. Levesque, R. J. R. (2000). Adolescents, sex, and the law: Preparing adolescents for responsible citizenship. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Levesque, R. J. R. (2008). Rethinking child maltreatment law: Returning to first principles. New York: Springer. Morrisette, P. J. (1994). The holocaust of first nation people: Residual effects on parenting and treatment implications. Contemporary Family Therapy, 16, 381–391. Platt, A. (1977). The child savers: The invention of delinquency (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ullman, R. P. (2000). Federal juvenile waiver practices: A contextual approach to the consideration of prior delinquency records. Fordham Law Review, 68, 1329–1369.
Child Sexual Abuse MARTINE HE´BERT De´partement de sexologie, Universite´ du Que´bec a` Montre´al, Montre´al, Que´bec, Canada
Overview Child sexual abuse is an important social problem. Unfortunately, despite the vast implementation of prevention initiatives, sexual abuse is still considered a relatively common experience in the lives of youths. Prevalence studies suggest that one out of four women and one out of ten men will experience child sexual abuse before reaching the age of 18 (He´bert et al. 2009; Pereda et al. 2009; Putnam 2003). While definitions of child sexual abuse may vary, common elements refer to: (1) the forced or unwanted nature of the sexual act involved; (2) the fact that the activity involves the child and an older child, an adult, a caregiver, or a person in a position of authority; and (3) the underlying notion
C
400
C
Child Sexual Abuse
that a child cannot legally consent to sexual activity. Child sexual abuse may involve contact activities (intentional unclothed or clothed touching of genitalia, breasts, or buttocks excluding contacts required for normal care; oral, vaginal, or anal penetration) and noncontact activities (exposure to sexual activity, filming, involvement in child pornography, or prostitution) (Gilbert et al. 2009). The vast majority (>90%) of cases of sexual abuse involve a male perpetrator, and complete strangers account for only a minority of cases (
![[PDF Download] How To Quit Caffeine - Caffeine Side ... - Google Sites](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/pdf-download-how-to-quit-caffeine-caffeine-side-go_6478d120097c4744708d418d.jpg)
